R v Leatham - [2006] VSC 315

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1562 of 2005

THE QUEEN

DAN HENRY LEATHAM

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 August 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Leatham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 315

---

Criminal law – sentence – manslaughter – fight between close friends – young offender – rehabilitation paramount – remorse – contents of victim impact statement – alternative basis for prosecution rejected – three years imprisonment – 2 year minimum – wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K. Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Richter QC with Mr H. Mason	Galbally & O‘Bryan Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Dan Henry Leatham you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter arising out of the death of your closest friend, Benjamin Peter James Francis on 4 September 2004. It is now the duty of this Court to sentence you according to law.

You and Ben Francis had known each other virtually all your lives. You attended primary school together and, apart from a period when Ben’s father’s employment took him elsewhere, you lived in close proximity to each other. You both attended Berwick Secondary College and you both subsequently attended Dandenong TAFE to pursue training as motor mechanics. Many witnesses whose statements appear on the brief of evidence in this case described the two of you as “inseparable” or as “the best of friends”. You enjoyed a social life together which included a large circle of friends.

On Friday 3 September 2004 you telephoned your friend Ben and invited him to your place to play cards and to drink. Initially he refused your invitation. He had spent the two previous nights at your place as you were both attending the TAFE. On those nights you had gone to bed late after drinking and studying for an exam. Ben told you that he felt too tired. However, you persisted in your invitation and, after some further resistance, he agreed to come to your place.

You went to Ben’s house and picked him up. On the way back to your place you bought a bottle of whisky each at a local liquor store. The whisky you bought was Canadian Club. Canadian Club whisky is 37% alcohol. Ben purchased a bottle of McCallum scotch whisky which is 40% alcohol. You also bought Coke and soda water.

Upon arrival at your house the two of you went to your bedroom, watched television and talked. At about 10.30 pm your mother went to bed. You and Ben began playing cards. You engaged in this pursuit over the next two hours or so and as you did so you drank whisky. Unsurprisingly you both became intoxicated.

At about 12.30 am Ben told you that he was going to bed because he was intoxicated and tired. He went to your younger brother’s bedroom, where he often slept,…

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 Leatham

Details

AGLC: R v Leatham [2006] VSC 315
Case: [2006] VSC 315
Decision Date: 28 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leatham involved the defendant, Leatham, who was charged with manslaughter following a physical altercation with a close friend that resulted in the victim's death. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Leatham, considering his age, the circumstances of the offence, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The central legal issues were the appropriate weight to give to the various sentencing principles, including the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, as well as the impact of the offence on the victim's family.

The court carefully weighed the principles of sentencing, emphasising the importance of rehabilitation given Leatham's young age and the remorse he had shown. The judge also considered the contents of the victim impact statement, which highlighted the profound grief and loss experienced by the victim's family. While the court acknowledged the need for denunciation, it found that the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the altercation was between close friends, warranted a more rehabilitative approach. The court rejected an alternative basis for prosecution, ultimately deciding that a custodial sentence was necessary but could be made effective through a wholly suspended imprisonment term.

After considering the various factors, the court sentenced Leatham to three years imprisonment, with a minimum of two years to be served. However, the sentence was wholly suspended, meaning Leatham would not serve any time in prison provided he complied with certain conditions. The court believed that this approach would best serve the interests of justice by allowing Leatham the opportunity to rehabilitate and make amends for his actions without the long-term stigma of a criminal record.

Orders