R v Mann - [2009] VSC 536

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1421 of 2008

THE QUEEN

ARVINDER SINGH MANN

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2009, 6 August 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mann
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 536

---

Catchwords: Plea of guilty – One count of intentionally causing serious injury – One count of armed robbery – Varying accounts of events between victim and accused – No prior convictions – Surrender to police – Low risk of recidivism.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W. Toohey	Slades & Parsons Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Arvinder Singh Mann, you have pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of armed robbery. No prior convictions are alleged against you.

These offences occurred on the early hours of Boxing Day, 26 December 2007. Your victim was Shashikant Sharma, whom you had met some two weeks earlier. Your families were acquainted in India, and Mr Sharma had been asked by his brother‑in‑law in India to lend you money, which he did, and it is in these circumstances that you struck up a friendship with him.

On Christmas Day 2007, you and Mr Sharma travelled by train to the city and went to the Casino. You returned to Dandenong at about 4 or 5 in the afternoon and then drove to where Mr Sharma was living at Noble Park. Between 7 and 9 o'clock that night Mr Sharma’s landlord, Mr D'Sylva, and his sister‑in‑law came to the house to use the oven to cook food for a Christmas dinner being held elsewhere. You all partook of a shot of whisky to celebrate Christmas, and at about 9.30 Mr D'Sylva drove you and Mr Sharma to the Noble Park railway station as you were intending to return to the city. It appears that Mr Sharma had a change of heart and the two of you instead caught the train back to Dandenong and returned to Mr Sharma's house and spent the rest of the night in his room. According to Mr Sharma, he offered you something to eat and at some point he fell asleep and the next thing he recalled was being awoken by a blow to his head. Mr Sharma turned on the light and saw you standing before him holding the handle of a pressure cooker with the pressure cooker itself lying on the floor. Mr Sharma’s head was bleeding profusely and you were trying to block him from leaving the room and he cried out, “Have you gone crazy?”

You then tried to hit him with an empty bottle, but Mr Sharma deflected that blow and you then grabbed a rolling pin and hit Mr Sharma to the head several times and once on the shoulder.

Mr Sharma said that you produced a knife from your…

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 Mann

Details

AGLC: R v Mann [2009] VSC 536
Case: [2009] VSC 536
Decision Date: 26 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Mann, appeared before the court on charges of intentionally causing serious injury and armed robbery. The victim provided conflicting accounts of the events, and Mann had no prior convictions. He voluntarily surrendered to the police and was deemed a low risk for reoffending. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Mann’s crimes.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Mann’s offences, given his lack of prior convictions, his voluntary surrender, and the low risk of recidivism. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation. The court also considered the victim’s accounts, despite their variance, in its sentencing deliberation.

In determining the sentence, the court recognised Mann's lack of prior criminal history and his voluntary surrender as mitigating factors. The court found that these factors, coupled with the low risk of recidivism, warranted a sentence that allowed for Mann's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court decided to impose a sentence that was sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offences but also provided a pathway for Mann’s future rehabilitation. The final orders of the court were to be communicated in a subsequent document.

Orders