R v Lewis - [2015] VSC 252

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT BENDIGO

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0125

THE QUEEN
v
DARREN LEWIS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo
DATE OF HEARING:	16 March 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 March 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lewis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 252

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Joint criminal enterprise - Objective criminality high – Although offender neither initiator nor driving force of agreement, offender was active participant in lengthy, brutal and cowardly attack – Moral culpability high and aggravated by burning of deceased’s body – Methamphetamine use and addiction – Some evidence of remorse – Plea of guilty – Utilitarian discount – Discount for undertaking to give Crown evidence against co-accused – Convicted and sentenced to 10 years nine months’ imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of eight years and three months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms L. Taylor QC with Ms R. Harper	Vaille Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	Valos Black & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Darren Lewis, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of William Stevenson on Christmas day 2013. The circumstances of your offending are as follows.

Mr Stevenson lived for the last months of his life in his Kerang unit. Intermittently, your co-accused, Danielle Kerr, lived at that unit. It seems that their relationship was, at times, volatile. In mid December 2013, whilst she was still residing at Mr Stevenson’s unit, you and she met and shortly thereafter commenced a relationship.

On Christmas eve, Mr Stevenson joined you and Ms Kerr at your farm at Wellsford. You all used ice (methylamphetamine) and consumed alcohol. Mr Stevenson was required to work on the morning of Christmas day. You and Ms Kerr drove with him in his car to his workplace near Pyramid Hill. You dropped him at work and departed in his car, having arranged to pick him up when required.

As events turned out, you did not pick him up, despite the fact that you had borrowed his car. This appears to have infuriated Mr Stevenson. A friend, Donna Stewart, picked him up from the side of the road and took him to her property. At this stage, according to Ms Stewart, he was fuming. You and Ms Kerr eventually went to that property. Mr Stevenson was still irate. You described him in your recent statement as jumping up and down and swearing. He threw his already broken mobile phone at Ms Kerr.

You, Ms Kerr and Mr Stevenson left Ms Stewart’s property. She described Mr Stevenson at this stage as yelling abuse at you and Ms Kerr.

In a covertly recorded conversation with Detective Birch, you said that Ms Kerr hated Bill. You said that before going to Donna Stewart’s, you pulled into a parking bay at Pyramid Hill. Ms Stewart asked you if you would help her to kill Mr Stevenson. You said she…

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 Lewis

Details

AGLC: R v Lewis [2015] VSC 252
Case: [2015] VSC 252
Decision Date: 17 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lewis, the appellant was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant and three co-accused were part of a joint criminal enterprise that involved a lengthy, brutal, and cowardly attack on the victim. The attack culminated in the victim’s death and the burning of his body. The appellant neither initiated nor was the driving force of the agreement but was an active participant in the crime. The court considered the objective criminality of the offence to be very high, particularly due to the manner in which the attack was conducted and the subsequent burning of the victim's body. The appellant’s moral culpability was also significant, although there was some evidence of remorse. The appellant had a history of methamphetamine use and addiction, which was taken into account during sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the appropriate discount to apply to the appellant's sentence due to his guilty plea, his cooperation with the Crown by agreeing to give evidence against his co-accused, and the overall gravity of the offence. The court needed to balance these mitigating factors against the severity of the crime and the appellant's level of culpability. The court also considered the principles of deterrence and retribution in determining the sentence.

The court concluded that the appellant's moral culpability was high, but his participation, while significant, was not that of the principal actor. The court applied a utilitarian discount for the guilty plea and the undertaking to give evidence against the co-accused. However, the high degree of objective criminality and the appellant’s active involvement in the brutal and cowardly attack were heavily weighed in determining the sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced the appellant to a total of 10 years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and three months. This sentence reflected the serious nature of the crime, the appellant’s significant moral culpability, and the mitigating factors considered.

Orders