R v McLachlan - [2000] VSC 564

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1470 of 1997

THE QUEEN

JOHN ANDREW McLACHLAN

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 DECEMBER 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 564

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Manslaughter conviction – Numerous previous offences of violence – Importance of specific and general deterrence and community protection – Prior offer of plea and traumatic effect of earlier trials and an appeal to be taken into account – Nine years with a non-parole period of seven years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. N. Parkinson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mrs. J. Morrish Q.C.	Bryant & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

I will deal firstly with the s.464ZF application. That application is granted for the following reasons: The seriousness of the offence, the prior convictions of the accused, the fact that the extension of the DNA database is in the public interest and, importantly, the consent of Mr McLachlan himself to the order.

Mr McLachlan, I need to explain to you that the provision of a DNA sample, being a blood sample, should only involve a pinprick. The procedure is simple and quick, and can easily be performed with your cooperation. However, the law also provides that the police may use reasonable force to enable the procedure to be conducted. No doubt your barrister will explain the matter further to you.

John Andrew McLachlan, having been presented for trial for the murder of Derek Anthony Jones at Bayswater on 22 June 1996, a jury found you guilty of manslaughter. The circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence are relevant to the sentence I must impose on you and, accordingly, it is necessary to briefly summarise them.

On the evening of 21 June 1996, you arrived at Unit 4, 271 Canterbury Road, Bayswater North. The tenant of that unit was a newly found friend of yours, Tracy Marshall. Prior to your arrival you had been drinking at the Savoy Tavern in the City. You described yourself as drunk, although none of those at the flat gave evidence of observing you to be intoxicated.

Already at the unit were Tracy Marshall, a friend of hers , Emma Stephens, and the deceased, Derek Jones. About 7.20 p.m., you were joined by Kristen Ogilvie, who was a friend of Tracy Marshall. Marshall, Stephens and Jones had earlier obtained some whisky and coke which they were consuming. You joined them in this activity. There is a considerable discrepancy between the evidence of the two major Crown witnesses, Emma Stephens and Kristen Ogilvie, as to the events leading up to the death of Derek Jones. However, it is clear that a level of antagonism developed between you and Mr Jones, who was obviously affected by alcohol.

According to Emma Stephens, the deceased initially was boasting that he was "a hitman" and would like to kill a man named Andy. Apparently this was a reference to an Andy Jones, a person known to…

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 McLachlan

Details

AGLC: R v McLachlan [2000] VSC 564
Case: [2000] VSC 564
Decision Date: 19 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McLachlan came before the Supreme Court, involving a conviction for manslaughter. McLachlan was found guilty after a series of trials and appeals, which included a plea offer that was previously made. The court had to balance the considerations of specific and general deterrence as well as community protection in determining the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to give to McLachlan's extensive history of violent offences, the relevance of the traumatic effect of previous trials and the appeal process on McLachlan, and the terms of a plea offer that was previously made. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to manslaughter and the importance of deterrence and protection of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of deterrence, both specific and general, in sentencing for violent offences. It recognised McLachlan's extensive history of violence, which included numerous prior offences, as a significant factor. The court also took into account the trauma McLachlan experienced from the earlier trials and the appeal process. Despite the plea offer previously made, the court decided that a custodial sentence was necessary for adequate deterrence and community protection. Ultimately, the court sentenced McLachlan to nine years in prison, with a non-parole period of seven years.

Orders