R v Munt & Ors - [2014] VSC 675

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0043
S CR 2014 0044
S CR 2014 0046
S CR 2014 0132

THE QUEEN

HARLEY MUNT

DALE LONG

TYSON FOLINO

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 October 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Munt & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 675

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G B Hevey	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Munt	Mr C Pearons	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Accused Long	Ms N Kaddeche	Doogue & O’Brien George
For the Accused Folino	Mr A Furstenberg	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HIS HONOUR:

On 16 September 2014 you, Harley Munt pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Zebulon Harris whom you shot and killed in the early hours of 19 August 2013. On the same date, you Dale Long and you Tyson Folino pleaded guilty to pervert the course of justice and you Tyson Folino pleaded guilty to the possession of a sawn off double barrel shotgun.

You Munt, and Long with Trent McLeod, came upon a Volkswagon van outside 50-52 Branton Road, Hoppers Crossing. You were searching for the van to retrieve it. The van had been taken by Mr Harris and his friends from the home of one Matthew Harrower who was a friend of yours.

You believed that the van had been stolen, Mr Harris and his friends believed that they were entitled to remove it from Mr Harrower. You and your friends came upon Mr Harris in Branton Road where he had and his friends were. The van was readably identifiable because it had two yellow dome lights at the top of the front portion of the vehicle. When you arrived Mr Harris was walking towards the back of the Volkswagon van carrying a television. You got out of your car. You were armed with a sawn off .22 rifle which you owned and which you had brought with you from home. Although you said in your interview that Long had told you to bring the gun which he had described as “your thing”. Yet Long latter denied that he knew you were armed.

Both you and your co-accused Tyson Folino and Kiernan Cameron who were in another vehicle saw the firearm and decided not to go with you, Long and McLeod. After you got out of the car, which was parked behind the van facing in the same direction, you were seen by some members of Mr Harris’ group who were in a car. As you crossed the road heading towards Mr Harris, they noticed that you were armed and one Chamma drove his vehicle in your direction but missed you. That car and those in it left the area.

You challenged Mr Harris who out the television on the ground and moved towards the driver’s side of the van. You shot him. He…

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 Munt & Ors

Details

AGLC: R v Munt & Ors [2014] VSC 675
Case: [2014] VSC 675
Decision Date: 22 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves the sentencing of Harley Munt, Dale Long, and Tyson Folino, who were involved in the death of Zebulon Harris. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account their individual circumstances and the nature of their involvement in the crime. The court had to balance the principles of just punishment, general deterrence, and specific deterrence when determining the sentence for each defendant. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the defendants' mental health and drug addiction on their culpability and sentence.

The court found that Harley Munt was responsible for the death of Zebulon Harris and that his actions were dangerous and unlawful. Munt's sentence was based on the seriousness of the offence, his lack of intent to kill, and his expressions of remorse. The court also took into account Munt's difficult upbringing, his struggle with drug addiction, and his efforts to rehabilitate himself while in custody. Munt was sentenced to 11 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Dale Long was found to have attempted to pervert the course of justice by hiding the car used in the crime and attempting to shift the blame to another person. Long's sentence focused on his rehabilitation and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court considered Long's troubled upbringing, his drug addiction, and his efforts to seek counselling. Long was sentenced to two years on a Community Correction Order, with conditions that he complete unpaid community work, undergo assessment and treatment for drug use, and be supervised by Community Corrections.

Tyson Folino was found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and possession of an unregistered firearm. The court considered Folino's troubled history, his drug addiction, and his potential brain injury. Folino was sentenced to two years on a Community Correction Order, with conditions that he undergo treatment and rehabilitation, including a mental health assessment and drug treatment. The court emphasized the importance of Folino complying with the conditions of his order to avoid imprisonment.

In summary, the court took into account the individual circumstances of each defendant, the nature of their involvement in the crime, and the principles of sentencing when determining their respective sentences. The court balanced the need for just punishment, general deterrence, and specific deterrence while also considering the impact of the defendants' mental health and drug addiction on their culpability and sentence.

Orders