R v Landells - [2000] VSCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 68 of 1999

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER IAN LANDELLS

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., CALLAWAY and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May, 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 May, 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 84

---

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Antagonism of applicant towards deceased – Whether having to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Sentence – Head sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 13 years not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. C. Hillman	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. D. Grace, Q.C.	Stary George Myall

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

The applicant, who is aged 36, was convicted in the Supreme Court at Melbourne upon a count of murder. This offence, which carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life was alleged to have been committed at Woori Yallock on 26 November, 1997. The deceased was one Jarrod Garth Pye, a young man then aged 19, who was a good friend of the applicant. As the learned trial judge said to the jury in his charge,

“It seems to me that there is no dispute in this case that the act performed by the accused caused the death of Jarrod Pye, nor is it asserted that the action of discharging the weapon was not a conscious, voluntary act, in the way I have defined that concept for you.
The key issue in this case is the specific intention of the accused at the time he performed the act of discharging the firearm at the deceased. Did he have the specific intention to kill, or the specific intention to cause really serious bodily injury at the time he fired the fatal shot? (p.243)”

These statements of the judge reflect evidence proffered by the prosecution at the trial. The applicant stood mute and called no evidence. The prosecution case was that the applicant and the deceased spent a deal of 26 November, 1997 together and with some other persons. In the afternoon the deceased and the applicant, together with a woman named Beverley Lewis, who shared a house with the applicant, and a man named Graham Bruce, a neighbour of the applicant, went from the applicant’s home to a location on the Yarra River about a kilometre or so away. They took with them and consumed a large quantity of alcohol including cans of beer and a mixture of cask wine, vodka and pineapple juice mixed up in a bucket.

About 5.00 p.m. the group returned to the applicant’s home in Cynthia Grove all affected by alcohol. Bruce returned to his home next door and had a meal and a sleep. Later, two men, a Brian May and a Brian Davies (known as Cowboy) came to the house. In the early evening Bruce also returned to the house. He sat drinking beer with the deceased in the deceased’s car.

About 8.00 p.m. Cowboy went to the…

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 Landells

Details

AGLC: R v Landells [2000] VSCA 84
Case: [2000] VSCA 84
Decision Date: 24 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Landells, the appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, with the conviction resting partly on evidence of the appellant's antagonism towards the deceased. The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis that antagonism towards the deceased was not an element of the offence of murder and thus should not have been required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether antagonism towards the deceased was an essential element of the offence of murder that needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that antagonism towards the deceased was not an essential element of murder and thus did not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court held that the antagonism evidence was relevant to establishing the appellant's state of mind and therefore properly considered by the jury. The court also considered the sentence imposed and found that the head sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the antagonism evidence was relevant to the appellant's state of mind and thus properly considered by the jury. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Orders