R v McLaughlin

[2016] VSC 85

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0049

THE QUEEN
v
LISA JANE McLAUGHLIN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 March 2016
DATE OF RULING:	4 March 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v McLaughlin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 85

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Manslaughter – Sentence indication – Meaning of ‘sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately’ – Pre-sentence detention - Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 207.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N. Rochford Ms K. Argiropoulos	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. McMahon	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1. The accused has applied for a sentence indication pursuant to s 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act2009.  Under that provision, I may indicate whether or not I would impose a ‘sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately’ were the accused to plead guilty to a charge (in this case, manslaughter).

1. I consider that the phrase ‘a sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately’ must be taken to  carry with it the practical consequence that, upon sentencing, the person who has pleaded guilty will be actually imprisoned from the time of sentence and extending into the future.

1. If the contrary were true, and the provision stipulated a sentence including any term of actual imprisonment,[1] then a positive sentence indication[2] under this section would be unavailable in every case involving any pre-sentence detention – no matter how long.  I doubt that this was Parliament's intention.

   [1]That is, regardless of whether or not that term had already been served by way of pre-sentence detention

   [2](from the accused’s perspective).

1. I indicate that, were Ms McLaughlin to plead guilty to manslaughter at common law, the court would not be likely to impose a sentence of imprisonment that commences immediately.