R v Lee - [2017] VSC 678

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0072

THE QUEEN
v
ANDREW WILLIAM LEE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lee
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 678

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Manslaughter – Affray at hotel – Deceased died as a result of a single punch from the accused – Deceased attempting to remove friend from the affray when hit by the accused – History of proceedings - Accused originally charged with murder - Accused of previously good character – Remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – General and specific deterrence – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 9A & 9C – Principle of legality.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane QC and Mr J McWilliams	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC and Mr M Gumbleton	Garde-Wilson Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Andrew William Lee, on 8 September 2017 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter. That charge related to events which occurred on 16 April 2016 at the Windy Mile Hotel in Diamond Creek. At some time after 11:00pm that night, and during the course of an affray involving a number of people at the hotel, you threw a punch which struck Patrick Cronin to the right side of the head. That punch caused a fracture to him which in turn caused an unsurvivable brain injury and ultimately resulted in his death the following day, 17 April 2016. You and Patrick Cronin were unknown to each other and there was no hostility between you on that night.

Your plea of guilty to manslaughter occurred a day after your trial had commenced. A jury had been empanelled and both counsel had opened the case to that jury. The Court and the parties had also undertaken a view of the scene but the evidence had not commenced to be called. After your plea of guilty I continued your bail but on 2 October 2017 you presented yourself to the Court requesting that your bail be terminated. I revoked the order and you went into custody.

During the plea proceedings on 3 October 2017, I heard an opening on behalf of the prosecution from Mr Kissane QC who, with Mr McWilliams, appeared for the Director, as well as submissions on your behalf as to sentence from Mr Morrissey SC, who appeared with Mr Gumbleton.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this offence.

Circumstances of offending

On the afternoon of Saturday 16 April 2016, the deceased man Patrick Cronin played football for the Lower Plenty Football Club. That game commenced at 2.00pm and, as the prosecutor indicated, he did not sustain any injuries during the match and went home afterwards.

At about 6.00pm, the deceased told his…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2017] VSC 678
Case: [2017] VSC 678
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved a dispute concerning the sentencing of the defendant, Lee, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an affray at a hotel. The deceased had died as a result of a single punch delivered by Lee. The deceased was attempting to remove a friend from the affray when Lee struck him. The case came before the court following a history of proceedings where Lee was initially charged with murder. Lee had a history of good character and demonstrated remorse. The court was required to consider the factors of general and specific deterrence, good prospects of rehabilitation, and the principle of legality, under the Sentencing Act 1991 sections 9A and 9C.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to decide involved the appropriate sentence for Lee given his plea of guilty to manslaughter, his previously good character, and his demonstrated remorse. The court was required to balance these factors against the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the potential for Lee's rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court had to ensure that any sentence imposed was consistent with the principle of legality.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the principle of legality which dictates that any punishment must be authorised by law. The court took into account Lee's remorse and good character, as well as the nature of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence. Ultimately, the court concluded that Lee's actions warranted a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence that balanced these considerations, ensuring it was both fair and in line with legal principles.

The court ordered that Lee be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding parole eligibility and any other conditions to be outlined in the sentencing remarks. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the legal principles and the circumstances of the case.

Orders