R v LW - [2021] VSC 278

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0254
S ECR 2020 0255

THE QUEEN

LW
and
DANIEL McCONNELL

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 March 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v LW & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 278

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Reckless conduct endangering life – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Co-accused – Inappropriate use of firearms – Youthful offender – Sentenced to adjourned undertaking – Sentenced to Community Corrections Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Lewis	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused LW	Mr D. Hallowes SC with Mr S. Norton	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Accused McConnell	Mr J. Anderson	Sullivan Braham Barristers & Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

You, Daniel McConnell, pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice before Judicial Registrar Freeman on 11 February 2021.

LW, following a sentence indication hearing, you pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless conduct endangering life, and one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice before me on 23 February 2021.

The facts may be stated relatively briefly. In this analysis I have called heavily upon the Summary of Prosecution Opening, which was Exhibit 1 on the plea and read to the Court by Mr Justin Lewis, Crown Prosecutor who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The critical events occurred on Sunday 27 August 2017. You, LW, knew Daniel McConnell and Dustin Buckley had spent the afternoon and night of 26 August 2017 together. The following day at about 12.30pm after doing some work on McConnell’s vehicle, the three of you travelled to a place known as Cat Track in Neerim East. You used McConnell’s vehicle. You had three firearms with you; a Sturm Ruger .243 calibre rifle and a Savage .22 calibre rifle, which were registered in the name of LW’s mother, and a Browning .22 calibre rifle which was registered in McConnell’s name. You, LW, had loaded a discarded television into the vehicle.

When your group arrived at Cat Track, the television was placed in the middle of the track, and from about 50 metres away the three of you started shooting at the television. Dustin Buckley went to inspect the television. When he was standing a couple of metres to the right of it, you, LW, fired about 10 shots at the left hand side of the television. Dustin Buckley also fired at some puddles to splash you, LW. The three of you went back to the vehicle. You, LW, loaded four rounds into the Savage rifle. You fired the gun several times. Because of the sound you heard when you last cycled the action of the weapon, you assumed you had fired all of the rounds you had loaded into the rifle. You carried out no other…

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 LW

Details

AGLC: R v LW [2021] VSC 278
Case: [2021] VSC 278
Decision Date: 9 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v LW involved the appellant, LW, who was prosecuted for reckless conduct endangering life and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. LW pleaded guilty to charges that stemmed from an incident where he was involved in the inappropriate use of firearms, which endangered the life of another individual. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for LW, taking into consideration his status as a youthful offender and his co-accused's circumstances.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case, given LW's plea of guilty and his status as a youthful offender. The court also needed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the inappropriate use of firearms and the attempt to pervert the course of justice. Additionally, the court had to weigh the impact of LW's guilty plea against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court, in determining the sentence, emphasised the importance of considering LW's age and the potential for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged that LW had pleaded guilty, which was a significant factor in determining the sentence. However, the court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The court found that a sentence of an adjourned undertaking and a Community Corrections Order would best serve the interests of justice in this case. The court believed that this sentence would provide an opportunity for LW to demonstrate his rehabilitation and reintegration into society while also serving the needs of deterrence and protection of the community.

LW was sentenced to an adjourned undertaking and a Community Corrections Order, reflecting the court's consideration of his plea of guilty, his status as a youthful offender, and the need for an appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders