R v Lovett - [2008] VSC 60

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1586 of 2007

THE QUEEN

ROBERT SHANE LOVETT

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	18 and 22 February 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 March 2008 (Melbourne)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lovett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 60	Revised 12 March 2008

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Sentence – Youthful offender.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Drake	Ronald V. Tait

HIS HONOUR:

Robert Shane Lovett, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter in relation to the death of Mr Dwayne Daniel Sherri. The basis for the count of manslaughter is that your act which caused Mr Sherri’s death was unlawful and dangerous. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The killing of Mr Sherri occurred on 28 May 2007. At the time of his death Mr Sherri was 27 years old. You were initially charged with murder on presentment filed on 17 October 2007. An amended presentment was filed before me on 18 February 2008, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions presents that you killed the deceased.

Circumstances of the Offence

The evidence suggests that you and Mr Sherri did not get on very well although I am not satisfied that your conduct leading to the death of Mr Sherri was directly related to such feeling. It is the case that a few days before Mr Sherri’s death there was a dispute of some sort between you over drinks being shouted when the deceased later went to your premises for the purpose of purchasing cannabis from you. In aggressive terms you were heard to tell the deceased to leave your premises “… before [you] slit [his] throat”. In view of what happened three days later, the words used were unfortunate but, of course, the Crown does not contend that the act which caused the death of Mr Sherri was done in any way in furtherance of that threat.

At about 5:00 pm on 28 May 2007 you were at the Foodworks supermarket in Myers Street, East Geelong, when you were confronted by Mr Craig Blatchford. Mr Blatchford maintained a relationship with a former girlfriend of yours and was the father of her child. You had lived with her and the child for a considerable time until she decided to reunite with Mr Blatchford after his release from prison. You had apparently not met Mr Blatchford before, but you were aware of some hostility on his part toward you.

The evidence indicates that in the supermarket you were threatened by Mr Blatchford and the encounter between you and Mr Blatchford is recorded on closed circuit television (CCTV). Mr Blatchford apparently confronted you and you maintain that he had a knife at the time, although that cannot be verified by viewing the CCTV footage. After Mr Blatchford had…

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 Lovett

Details

AGLC: R v Lovett [2008] VSC 60
Case: [2008] VSC 60
Decision Date: 7 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Lovett involved the defendant, Lovett, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The circumstances surrounding the death of the victim, and the subsequent plea of guilty, necessitated a determination of an appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with considering the age of the offender, the nature of the offence, and any relevant mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was to assess the appropriate sentence for Lovett, a youthful offender who had admitted to the manslaughter of another individual. The court needed to weigh various factors including Lovett's age, the circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating factors that might influence the sentencing. The court also had to consider statutory guidelines and precedents relevant to sentencing youthful offenders for manslaughter.

The court acknowledged Lovett's youth and the potential for rehabilitation, along with the gravity of the offence. In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of deterrence while also considering the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court took into account the mitigating factors presented, such as Lovett's background and any expressions of remorse. Ultimately, the court determined that while the offence was serious, the sentencing should reflect Lovett's age and potential for future reform. The court imposed a sentence that balanced punishment with the prospect of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence, along with specific directives for rehabilitation and supervision during the term of the sentence. The court also mandated that Lovett participate in programs designed to address the underlying issues that contributed to the offence, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

Orders