R v Nuttal - [2005] VSC 14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1315 of 2003

THE QUEEN

DANIEL JOHN NUTTAL

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	SHEPPARTON
DATE OF HEARING:	3-5, 8-12, 15-18, 22-25 NOVEMBER 2004 and 1 FEBRUARY 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 FEBRUARY 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v NUTTAL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 14

---

SENTENCE – Murder – Two counts.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC Mr S. Dewberry	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Chadwick	Mr Kerry Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

Daniel John Nuttal, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murders of John Gordon MacKay and Allen Raymond Thomas at Shepparton on 9 February 2003.

On the evening of Saturday 8 February you received a phone call from your friend, the co-accused Guthrie. He asked you to pick him up which you did, driving your mother's car as you were accustomed to do. The two of you purchased a slab of bourbon and coke at a bottle shop and after spending some time drinking at a football ground, you drove home and left Guthrie while you picked your mother up from work. You then returned and once again went out with Guthrie. At about 2.00 a.m. you drove to the house of your victims MacKay and Thomas in Ashenden Street, Shepparton.

On your arrival the front door to the house was broken down and MacKay and Thomas were taken from their beds in their underpants. MacKay was placed in the back seat of the car and Thomas in the boot. In the initial summary of events given by you to police at answer 30 of your record of interview you summarise what occurred as follows:

"… He's kicked in the door, the front door of the house. There were no lights on at the time and a short – short time later, came outside with Gordon and placed him in the back seat of the car and then he's gone back into the house and retrieved Allen and dragged him out the front of the house and placed him in the boot of the car and then he's requested that I drive him to the river, which I've done at Raftery Road and after we arrived at the river, Jason has dragged Gordon from the back seat of the car and started laying into him on the ground beside the river. At which time I was still seated in the driver's seat of the car and I – I got out of the car and walked around the vehicle to see him laying into Gordon. And Jason has requested that I give him a hand to put Gordon into the water, which I have done and Jason has pushed him underneath the surface of the water and held him there for some time until he was satisfied that he was dead. And then he'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 Nuttal

Details

AGLC: R v Nuttal [2005] VSC 14
Case: [2005] VSC 14
Decision Date: 4 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nuttal, the defendant, Nuttal, was found guilty of two counts of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The victims were individuals with whom Nuttal had prior relationships, and the crimes were committed under circumstances that led to a thorough investigation and subsequent prosecution. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these serious offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for two counts of murder. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the character and background of the offender, and any mitigating or aggravating factors present in the case. The defence argued for a lesser sentence due to certain mitigating factors, while the prosecution urged for a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes.

The court, in its decision, carefully weighed the evidence and arguments presented. It acknowledged the heinous nature of the crimes and the loss suffered by the victims' families. The court considered the mitigating factors presented by the defence but found them insufficient to significantly reduce the severity of the sentence. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected the gravity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court imposed a life sentence with a non-parole period of 25 years for each count of murder, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Nuttal be imprisoned for life with a non-parole period of 25 years for each count of murder, to be served concurrently. This decision reflects the court's commitment to justice for the victims and their families, while also considering the need to balance the punishment with the mitigating factors presented in the case.

Orders