R v Landmark - [2015] VSC 103

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0083 of 2013

THE QUEEN

WAYDE LANDMARK

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 December 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 March 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Landmark
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 103

---

Assist offender intentionally cause serious injury.
Sentence: 2 years and 3 months ‑ Minimum: 1 year and 8 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Darcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Williams	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Wayde Landmark, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender contrary to s 325 of the Crimes Act 1958. The particulars of the charge are that at Portland on 15 October 2012, knowing or believing Lennard Haven Sciascia to be guilty of a serious indictable offence, namely intentionally causing serious injury, you without lawful authority or reasonable excuse did an act for the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of that principal offender, Sciascia. The maximum penalty for the offence of assisting offender in these circumstances is five years’ imprisonment.

You are currently 36 years of age, having been born in December 1978. You were 33 years of age at the time of this offending.

As stated earlier, you have pleaded guilty to this offence. Your plea must be considered a late plea in that the matter had previously been listed for trial in Warrnambool, your two co-offenders had pleaded guilty and been dealt with, and the matter was listed for re-hearing in Warrnambool in February before you determined to enter a plea of guilty. Despite the lateness of the plea, you are entitled to and will receive a significant discount for your plea of guilty as your plea saves the community significant cost in terms of running a trial, together with the difficulty, and emotional trauma that most witnesses undergo when being asked to recall events of this nature.

The circumstances of the totality of this offending are somewhat bizarre, but mainly reflect very poorly upon each and every person involved. They are somewhat convoluted in terms of participants, times and locations and I shall summarise as best I am able those particular circumstances that applied.

The persons of significance in this case, apart from yourself, are the principal offender Sciascia, and Dylan Robertson the other co-offender, both of whom have been previously sentenced for their participation, together with the victim Troy Hocking, who died as a result of this criminal activity. He was born on 3 June 1992 and at the time of the incident he was only 20 years of age.

In respect of your co-offenders, Sciascia was 26 years of age and Robertson 31.

You all knew each other reasonably well and your relationships had bouts of hostility as well as periods of friendship, those relationships could best be described as erratic.

The circumstances relating to this offending commenced…

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 Landmark

Details

AGLC: R v Landmark [2015] VSC 103
Case: [2015] VSC 103
Decision Date: 30 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of R v Landmark was heard, where the respondent was accused of aiding an offender who intentionally caused serious injury. The prosecution alleged that the respondent played a role in facilitating the offence, which involved a violent incident resulting in significant harm to the victim. The case required the court to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted aiding an offender, and if so, to impose an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct met the criteria for aiding an offender under relevant statutes. The court needed to assess the extent of the respondent's involvement in the offence and whether their actions were intentional and facilitated the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the court had to consider the appropriate sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the respondent's role in it.

The court found that the respondent's actions did indeed constitute aiding an offender. The evidence presented demonstrated that the respondent was aware of the offender's intentions and provided assistance that enabled the offence to occur. The court emphasised the gravity of the crime and the harm caused to the victim. After considering various sentencing factors, including the respondent's culpability and the need for deterrence, the court sentenced the respondent to two years and three months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of one year and eight months. This decision reflects the court's commitment to addressing serious crimes and holding offenders accountable for their actions.

Orders