R v Lamblin - [2017] VSC 306

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0035

THE QUEEN
v
KARL LAMBLIN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lamblin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 306

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Guilty plea – Drug use – Reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with minimum of seven years – 342 days pre-sentence detention.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G J C Silbert QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P S Tiwana	Dribbin & Brown Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Lamblin, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your mother’s brother, Paul O’Donnell, at his factory in Olive Grove, Keysborough. As a younger person you had been on good terms with your uncle, although I am told that the relationship had soured some years ago. In approximately June 2016, you stole a rare bass guitar from your grandparents’ house in Glen Waverley. This guitar belonged to Mr O’Donnell and he became aware that you had stolen it.

On 12 June 2016, you took the guitar to Kevin Hoffman’s house and left it there for safekeeping. Later that day, Mr Snaith, a friend of Mr O’Donnell was visiting Mr Hoffman, saw the guitar, recognised it as belonging to Mr O’Donnell and returned it to him. You became angry and remonstrated with Mr Hoffman about the guitar being returned. During the week after the guitar was returned you also spoke to Mr Snaith and told him that you were not happy about the guitar being returned and that he should watch his back. You spoke to a friend of yours, Darren Rich, and told him about the retrieval of the guitar. Mr Rich also observed you to be angry.

You were living an itinerant lifestyle at this time. On 17 June 2016, you left Darren Rich’s house borrowing a tent and a mattress. You also stole three knives from him.

On Saturday 18 June, Mr O’Donnell spent most of his day at his factory, where he sometimes resided and where he conducted a business repairing BMW motor cars. His partner, Helen Gaisbauer, and his mechanical assistant, Jake Hewgill, were also present for most of the day. Mr Hewgill left at around 5.00pm. During the evening of 18 June, Mr O’Donnell and Ms Gaisbauer spent time in the living area at the back of the factory watching television. At 7.26pm, Mr O’Donnell left the factory to walk his dog. He walked down the driveway area of the factories and turned right, walking along Olive Grove. While he was out you arrived at the factory area at 7.30pm. You were captured on CCTV cameras entering the factory area carrying a backpack. You had with you at least one large knife. Armed and uninvited, you entered the front of Mr O’Donnell’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lamblin

Details

AGLC: R v Lamblin [2017] VSC 306
Case: [2017] VSC 306
Decision Date: 31 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lamblin was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Lamblin, stood accused of manslaughter. Lamblin entered a guilty plea to the charge, and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court had to consider various factors, including Lamblin's drug use, the prospects of his rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court was also required to balance the appropriate punishment with the time Lamblin had already spent in pre-sentence detention.

The primary legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Lamblin, given his guilty plea and the mitigating factors presented. The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the likelihood of Lamblin’s rehabilitation, the impact of his drug use, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. Additionally, the court had to account for the 342 days Lamblin had already spent in custody prior to sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised Lamblin's guilty plea as a mitigating factor but emphasised the gravity of the offence of manslaughter. It acknowledged that Lamblin had reasonably good prospects for rehabilitation, but also noted the need for a sentence that adequately reflected the community's demand for justice and deterrence. Considering all these factors, the court sentenced Lamblin to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years, taking into account the 342 days of pre-sentence detention he had already served. This sentence aimed to balance the need for punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence, while also providing some credit for the time Lamblin had spent in custody awaiting trial.

Orders