R v MA - [2023] VSC 613

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0212

Between:
THE KING
-and-
MA	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 October 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 October 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v MA
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 613

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence following trial — Manslaughter — By unlawful and dangerous act — MA (aged 17) approached AC (aged 41) at train station in wee hours, concealing large knife — MA jabbed at AC with knife, without intending to stab him, but blade entered chest accidentally — Blade penetrated ten centimetres, causing internal injuries — AC fled to friend’s residence nearby, but bled to death in driveway — Whole incident, except moment of stabbing, captured on CCTV — MA originally charged with common law murder on basis of alleged intention to cause really serious injury (not death) — DPP rejected MA’s early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter — Prior to trial, MA failed to renew plea offer, despite awareness DPP would have accepted then — At trial, judge ruled no case to answer on murder, entered acquittal on that charge, and left manslaughter to jury — MA put prosecution to proof on identity, but accepted perpetrator committed manslaughter — Jury returned verdict of guilty of manslaughter — Offence serious, but less so than many other manslaughters — Profound victim impact — Prior appearances in NSW for offences of violence — On youth parole and bail in NSW at time of offence — Hardship of custody given pandemic restrictions, ADHD, and family in NSW — MA now 19, but immature and impressionable — Importance of youth — Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation — Relevance of general and specific deterrence, just punishment, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation — Parsimony — Current sentencing practices — MA held in youth justice centre (“YJC”) since arrest in January 2022 — MA vulnerable to more negative influences in adult prison — Sentence of detention in YJC may have been open had MA’s plea offer been accepted in 2022 — Parties submit imprisonment only available sentence now, but with shorter non‑parole period than usual — Sentence of six years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of three years — Court recommends to Adult Parole Board that MA remain in YJC to serve prison sentence — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 5 & 421; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5 & 32; Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), s 471.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J Dickie with Ms J Ollquist	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Sala	Stary Norton Halphen Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

In the very early hours of a December morning in 2021, Adam Cassar was killed as a result of a knife wound to his chest sustained while at Melton Railway Station. He was 41. In May this year, a jury found MA guilty of the…

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 MA

Details

AGLC: R v MA [2023] VSC 613
Case: [2023] VSC 613
Decision Date: 19 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, MA, was convicted of manslaughter following an incident at a train station where AC was fatally injured. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for MA, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident and 19 by the time of sentencing. MA had approached AC at a train station in the early hours of the morning, concealing a large knife. MA jabbed at AC with the knife without intending to stab him, but the blade accidentally entered AC's chest, penetrating ten centimetres and causing internal injuries. AC fled to a friend's residence but bled to death in the driveway. The incident was captured on CCTV except for the moment of stabbing. MA was originally charged with murder, but the judge ruled there was no case to answer on that charge. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.

The legal issues included whether MA's earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter should have been accepted, the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim, MA's history of violence, and the importance of rehabilitation. The court considered various sentencing principles, including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation. Given MA's age, immaturity, vulnerability to negative influences, and the potential for rehabilitation, the court opted for a sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The court recommended that MA serve the sentence in a youth justice centre to protect him from the harsher conditions of an adult prison.

Orders