R v Martin - [2003] VSC 197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1492 of 2001

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL PAUL MARTIN

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6-8, 11-15, 19-22, 25-27 NOVEMBER 2002, 26 MAY 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 MAY 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v MARTIN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 197

---

Murder – Sentence – Alcoholism.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Ms M. Williams

(Mr W. Morgan-Payler QC
for sentence plea)

Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr A. Lewis

Kerry Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

Michael Paul Martin, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Robert John Pretty at Wangaratta on the 12 February 2001. At the date of the deceased's death you were aged 39 and Mr Pretty was aged 57. Both you and he had been alcoholics for many years.

On that day you went to the deceased man's home unit with one O'Loughlin, at approximately 10.30 a.m. The deceased invited you into his home and offered you moselle to drink, from a cask in the fridge. The three of you then drank together in the lounge room. Shortly after midday you walked down to the Town and Country Hotel with O'Loughlin, to buy more alcohol with money provided by the deceased man. The hotel was approximately 20 minutes walk from Mr Pretty's home unit. The cash register records the purchase occurred at 12.37 p.m.

After purchasing moselle and some bottles of stout, you walked back to the deceased's home unit and the three of you re-commenced drinking. During the course of the afternoon a series of altercations broke out between you and the deceased. You accused the deceased of touching you up and when the deceased denied this, you three times attacked him in the lounge room where you were drinking.

On the first occasion you grabbed him by the shirt and neck and lifted him bodily, so that he was choking. You were separated by O'Loughlin, but grabbed him again in a similar fashion, again requiring O'Loughlin's intervention.

After some further drinking, you again accused the deceased man in similar terms and after a further denial by him, you took him by the shoulders and shook him violently. After this episode and a further passage of drinking, you obtained a towel and having folded it around the deceased's throat, commenced to choke him. Again, O'Loughlin had to separate you. Again, once this had occurred, drinking recommenced.

There is no evidence that at any stage during the afternoon the deceased acted in a violent or aggressive way towards you.

Some time after the incident in which you attempted to choke Mr Pretty with a towel, he retired to his bedroom and sat on his bed. O'Loughlin followed him into the bedroom to check how he was. O'Loughlin says that Mr Pretty was nervous, but that after you came into the bedroom and some further discussion occurred, things quietened down.

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2003] VSC 197
Case: [2003] VSC 197
Decision Date: 27 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin involved a defendant, Martin, who was convicted of murder. The nature of the dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Martin, taking into consideration his alcohol dependency. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Martin's alcoholism should be considered as a mitigating factor in determining his sentence. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation, especially in light of Martin's acknowledged struggle with alcohol addiction. This balancing act was complicated by the severity of the crime committed, which was murder.

The court meticulously examined the evidence related to Martin's alcoholism, including expert testimonies and medical reports, to understand its impact on his actions and culpability. Ultimately, the court concluded that while Martin's alcoholism was a significant mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court emphasised that the gravity of the crime necessitated a substantial sentence, but it also recognised the need for addressing Martin's underlying issues. Consequently, the court determined that Martin should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with provisions for treatment of his alcohol dependency during his incarceration. This approach aimed to provide justice for the victim while also offering Martin an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Orders