R v Norris, Norris & Bodere - [2006] VSC 75

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1566 of 2005

THE QUEEN

WAYNE LESLIE NORRIS,
WAYNE FREDERICK NORRIS &
JOABIE GAVARA BODERE

---

JUDGE:	Eames, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3-4 July 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 September 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Norris, Norris & Bodere
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 75

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Aggravated burglary – Theft of motor vehicle – Guilty pleas – Home invasion – Victim disabled, but not to knowledge of offenders – Relevance of Aboriginality to sentencing – Sentencing Act 1991, ss.89(4), 16(3B)(3C).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen, S.C.	Office of Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Wayne Leslie Norris For Wayne Frederick Norris For Joabie Gavara Bodere	Mr D. Parsons, S.C. Mr I. Hill, Q.C. Mr A. Jackson	Robert Stary & Associates Slades & Parsons Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

You have each pleaded guilty to three offences, as follows: Count 1, the manslaughter of Lee Bridge on 9 February 2005 at Warragul, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment; Count 2, aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment; Count 3 theft of a motor vehicle, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

I must now sentence you for those offences.

Lee Bridge was 36 years of age at the time of his death. He had resided in Warragul since 1990, in a modest home he had purchased with money awarded to him as damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred when he was a child. As a result of the accident he suffered brain damage and paralysis to one side of his body, and he later suffered severe epilepsy. He received daily support from welfare agencies, and he had a circle of friends, one of whom was Stephen Skarlatis. It was through Skarlatis that Lee Bridge had come into unwelcome contact with Wayne Frederick Norris, and his son Wayne Leslie Norris, respectively the second and first named accused on the presentment. It will be convenient, because of the similarity in your names to sometimes identify you as Norris Senior and Norris Junior. I intend no discourtesy in doing so.

It is necessary to say something about the circumstances of the prior contact between Mr Bridge and the two Norris’s.

On the 12 September 2003 Mr Bridge had been the victim of a robbery which occurred in his presence at his home in Trumby Street, Warragul. His mobile telephone had been stolen, together with a small amount of cash. In the course of the intrusion at his home Mr Bridge rang Skarlatis, who apparently dealt in drugs, and requested that he come to the house with $50 worth of marijuana. Whilst Lee Bridge was on the phone to him Skarlatis recognised the voice in the background of Wayne Frederick Norris. Mr Bridge later reported the robbery to police and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Norris, Norris & Bodere and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] VSC 75
Decision Date: 7 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Norris, Norris & Bodere involved three appellants who were convicted of manslaughter and aggravated burglary following a home invasion in which the victim was disabled, albeit without the offenders' knowledge. The appellants entered the victim's home unlawfully, and in the process, the victim sustained injuries that led to their death. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentences handed down by the lower courts.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate weight to be given to the appellants' Aboriginality in the sentencing process. The appellants argued that their Aboriginality should have been a significant mitigating factor in the sentencing, potentially leading to a more lenient outcome. The court was also required to determine whether the lower courts appropriately considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentences, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offenders, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the importance of considering the broader social and cultural context of the offenders, including their Aboriginality, when determining an appropriate sentence. However, the court also emphasised that while Aboriginality could be a relevant factor, it could not be determinative. The court found that the lower courts had appropriately considered the appellants' Aboriginality but had not adequately balanced this with other relevant factors. The court determined that the sentences imposed were excessive and not proportionate to the appellants' culpability and the nature of the offence. Consequently, the High Court reduced the sentences, highlighting the need for a balanced and contextualised approach to sentencing that considers both the individual circumstances of the offender and the broader social context.

Orders