R v Newton - [2002] VSC 182

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1401of 2001

THE QUEEN

v

CHARLOTTE EMMA NEWTON

---

JUDGE:

FLATMAN J.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

9 May 2002

DATE OF SENTENCE:

17 May 2002

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Newton

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2002] VSC 182

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Assist offender - Undertaking to give evidence against principal offender - Suspended Sentence.
---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown Mr B. Kayser Kay Robertson
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Accused Mr I. McIvor Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:
1 Charlotte Emma Newton, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender, knowing or believing that he had committed the crime of murder. The principal offender named in the presentment was one, Harris Kadrick. As with your co‑accused, Brooke Frances Rees, the facts in this case can be simply stated.

2 On Friday 23 February 2001, you went with Harris Kadrick to Springvale to buy heroin. You had with you about $600 and you were looking to buy between half a gram and one gram of heroin. You were going to divide that up and sell some and use the rest for yourselves. In Springvale, you met up with Nick Chiacchietta and his girlfriend, Brooke Rees. After going to St Kilda, you then went to the main street of Footscray in Chiacchietta’s Volvo car.

3 There you entered into a deal involving Tan Vu Tran, Li Thi Phong and an unknown female supplier. Your group paid over $400 towards the deal and a further $100 was paid by Tran. As soon as you tasted the substance you believed it was not heroin. You returned to Chiacchietta's home and Brooke Rees took over the driving of the vehicle. You were all of the view that you had been "ripped off". Ultimately, you made contact with Li Phong, and Phong was forced to get into the vehicle now driven by Brooke Rees. An altercation then took place in the car involving Kadrick and Phong. According to your statement, you were involved to the extent of trying to prevent Phong using his knife. It would appear that Phong was stabbed a number of times by Kadrick and later died of those wounds. The full extent of his injuries is set out in the reports by Professor Cordner and Dr Michael Coman. As the precise circumstances under which the deceased met his death are the subject of further proceedings, I should emphasise that the evidentiary framework for this sentence is based on the hand‑up brief admissible against you.

4 As it was with Brooke Rees, it can be said that you had no way of anticipating these events and to some extent you were less involved than Rees in that Rees was in the position as driver. It has also been put that you suggested going to the police after the stabbing.

5 Your criminality is constituted by assisting Rees cleaning…

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 Newton

Details

AGLC: R v Newton [2002] VSC 182
Case: [2002] VSC 182
Decision Date: 17 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Newton involved a defendant who had assisted an offender in the commission of a crime. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The defendant, in exchange for a lighter sentence, had undertaken to provide evidence against the principal offender. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of his involvement in the crime and his agreement to testify against the principal offender.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's cooperation and the extent to which this should mitigate his sentence. The court had to balance the defendant's role in the commission of the crime against his subsequent cooperation with law enforcement. Another issue was the principles surrounding the imposition of a suspended sentence in circumstances where the defendant had provided valuable assistance to the authorities.

The court concluded that, while the defendant's actions were initially complicit in the commission of the crime, his subsequent cooperation and undertaking to testify against the principal offender warranted a reduction in his sentence. The court found that a suspended sentence was appropriate, recognising the defendant's assistance and the potential deterrent effect on others who might be involved in similar crimes. The court also noted the importance of encouraging cooperation from offenders to aid in the prosecution of more serious offenders.

Orders