R v Moreland - [2015] VSC 324

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0033/0034/0035

Between:

THE QUEEN
and
MARK JAMES MORELAND, CHRISTOPHER NATHAN TIPPINS & TAI THORP	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	5, 10-14, 17-21 & 24-28 November and 1-5 & 8-12 December 2014 (Trial) and 15 June 2015 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 July 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Moreland; Tippins & Thorp
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 324

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence for manslaughter following trial – Deceased ambushed on bridge by three accused, assaulted and then abducted – Body not found – After verdict, first and second accused disclosed location of body – Body partially burnt and buried – Unlikely otherwise to have been found – Very serious example of manslaughter – Remorse – Limited priors for violence – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Third accused did not participate in assault on deceased or assist in disposing of body – Lesser role than co-accused – Youth – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of nine years on first and second accused – Sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years on third accused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams QC with Mr G. Hayward	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Mr Moreland	Mr T. Kassimatis	Theo Magazis & Associates
For Mr Tippins	Mr S. Johns	Christopher Traill Lawyers
For Mr Thorp	Mr J. Hannebery	Paul Vale Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On 12 December 2014, following a month-long trial before a jury, Mark James Moreland, Christopher Nathan Tippins and Tai Thorp were found not guilty of the murder of Gordon Hamm on 17 July 2013, but guilty of his manslaughter.

The prosecution case on murder was that the three men were involved in intercepting and taking Mr Hamm from a car driven by his friend Samantha Porter, at about 4:00 a.m., on a bridge over the Glenelg River at Nelson, a small town on the Victorian side of the border with South Australia. Their motive was said to be to steal money Mr Hamm had recently won and/or drugs he had bought earlier that night. It was alleged that, as a result of assaults inflicted on him while on the bridge and in the park just below it, Mr Hamm died either there or as he was taken away in a vehicle, and that his body was dumped elsewhere. The precise cause of death was not known, as Mr Hamm’s body had not been discovered at the time of trial.

Mr Tippins and Mr Moreland’s principal defence was that, while they were involved in kidnapping and assaulting Mr Hamm, they did not kill him. Rather, they handed him over alive to those who requested they kidnap him so that he might repay those persons monies he owed. An alternative defence was that, if they were found to have caused Mr Hamm’s…

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 Moreland

Details

AGLC: R v Moreland [2015] VSC 324
Case: [2015] VSC 324
Decision Date: 13 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Moreland involved three accused who were convicted of manslaughter following a trial. The deceased was ambushed on a bridge by the three accused, assaulted, and subsequently abducted. Despite an extensive search, the body of the deceased was not found. Following the verdict, the first and second accused disclosed the location of the body, which was found partially burnt and buried, a discovery that would likely not have been made otherwise. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for each of the accused, taking into account the severity of the crime, the remorse shown by the accused, and their prospects for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence to impose on each of the accused, considering the circumstances of the crime and the individual roles of each participant. The court needed to balance the heinous nature of the crime against the mitigating factors presented by the accused, such as their level of involvement, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider the sentencing principles applicable to each case, ensuring that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crime while also taking into account the individual circumstances of each accused.

The court concluded that the actions of the first and second accused were particularly egregious, given their involvement in both the assault and the disposal of the body. Despite the serious nature of the crime, the court recognised the remorse shown by the first and second accused, as well as their limited prior history of violent offences and reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. As a result, the court sentenced the first and second accused to 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years. The court found the third accused to have played a lesser role in the assault and in disposing of the body, and also considered the youth and very good prospects for rehabilitation of the third accused. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years on the third accused.

The final orders of the court were that the first and second accused were to serve 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years, and the third accused was to serve 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.

Orders