R v Laracy - [2008] VSC 67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1422 of 2006

THE QUEEN

JODI ANNE LARACY

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 March 2008 (Melbourne)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Laracy (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 67

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Manslaughter – Provocation – Intellectual disability.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M.G. O’Connell	Victoria Legal Aid

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Circumstances of the Offence.......................................................................................................... 2

The Nature of the Provocation........................................................................................................ 6

Background History and Psychological Diagnosis..................................................................... 7

The Relevance of Impaired Mental Functioning......................................................................... 9

Prior Convictions............................................................................................................................. 10

Plea of Guilty.................................................................................................................................... 10

Rehabilitation................................................................................................................................... 11

Victim Impact Statements.............................................................................................................. 12

Maximum Penalty............................................................................................................................ 12

Current Sentencing Practices......................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 14

HIS HONOUR:

Jodi Anne Laracy, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of Mr Ian Keith Clissold. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. I propose to declare that your pre-sentence detention at 1,055 days, including this day and impose a sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment. I will fix a non‑parole period of four (4) years.

You were initially charged with the murder of Mr Clissold and a trial on that charge commenced before me. It was necessary for the jury to be discharged and the day that a new jury was to be empanelled, your counsel requested that you be re‑arraigned. You again pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. On behalf of the Crown, Mr Gibson announced that your plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted in full satisfaction of the presentment.

The basis for your plea to manslaughter is that your act which caused Mr Clissold’s death occurred while, as a result of Mr Clissold’s assaults on you on that occasion, you were deprived of self-control and thus acted as a result of provocation. However, the offence you have committed is a very serious one resulting in the loss of Mr Clissold’s life.

Circumstances of the Offence

You and Mr Clissold had been in a relationship since September 2004. For a period of time at the end of that year the relationship had broken down but it continued in the early part of 2005. Your counsel has submitted to me that the relationship was volatile. I accept his submission that in relation to conflict in your relationship there was an inequality during the physical confrontations by virtue both of your gender and your intellectual deficits. I am of the opinion that such inequality means that to characterise the relationship as being one where you and Mr Clissold were “as bad as each other” is likely to be an inaccurate generalisation and I do not accept it.

I do accept that the evidence infers that you were the subject of violence from time to time at the hands of Mr Clissold, although I suspect…

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 Laracy

Details

AGLC: R v Laracy [2008] VSC 67
Case: [2008] VSC 67
Decision Date: 14 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Case of R v Laracy, the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter, was before the court for sentencing. The case arose from an incident where the defendant, who had an intellectual disability, killed an individual in a moment of extreme provocation. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of the defendant's intellectual disability and the provocation that contributed to the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's intellectual disability and the element of provocation should be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence. The court had to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. Another issue was the extent to which the defendant's disability should mitigate his culpability and sentence.

The court considered the defendant's intellectual disability and the provocative circumstances of the offence in determining an appropriate sentence. It found that the defendant's disability significantly impacted his capacity to understand and control his actions at the time of the offence. The court also acknowledged the role of extreme provocation in the defendant's actions. After weighing these factors against the need for general deterrence, the court decided on a sentence that reflected both the defendant's reduced culpability and the gravity of the offence. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances in sentencing, particularly where intellectual disability and provocation are present.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence that took into account the defendant's intellectual disability and the provocative circumstances of the offence. The court ordered the defendant to serve a period of imprisonment, with consideration given to his reduced culpability and the need for rehabilitation. The court also made orders for the defendant to receive appropriate support and treatment during his incarceration.

Orders