R v O'Brien and Hudson

Case [2012] VSC 592


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.0123 & 0126 of 2012

THE QUEEN
V

WAYNE O’BRIEN AND
SHANNON HUDSON

---

JUDGE:

KING J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

16 November 2012

DATE OF SENTENCE:

12 December 2012

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v O’Brien & Hudson

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2012] VSC 592

---

Plea of guilty – Intentionally causing serious injury – ‘Hate Crime’.

Young offenders – Unprovoked, prolonged, vicious attack on an Asian student.

Hudson: 10 years 6 months imprisonment – Minimum 8 years.  Extensive Prior record.

O’Brien: 4 years 6 months imprisonment – Minimum 2 years 6 months.  No prior record.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr G Silbert S.C. Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused O’Brien Mr J Williams Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused Hudson Mr S Maglia Greg Thomas Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

  1. Wayne O’Brien and Shannon Hudson, you have each pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury to Minh Duong on 27 June 2012.  You were arrested and charged on 28 June 2012.  At the committal mention on 21 and 28 September 2012, you both indicated an intention to plead guilty and the matters proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief.  Accordingly, you are each entitled to, and will receive, an appropriate reduction in your sentence for the plea of guilty, together with early stage at which it was indicated, particularly as it saved the victim, Minh Duong, the ordeal of giving evidence in this court. 

  1. Mr Duong was a 21 year old Vietnamese international student who was studying at Swinburne University.  He was employed part-time, as a store attendant at a 7‑Eleven Service Station in Moonee Ponds and, on the night of this incident, he was walking home from that job, when the attack occurred. 

  1. Wayne O’Brien, you have no prior convictions at all, and you are currently aged 20, as you were at the time of the offending, having been born on 30 April 1992. 

  1. Shannon Hudson, you have a significant number of prior convictions or appearances of relevance.  You are currently aged 21, and you were 20 at the time of offending, having been born on 28 September 1991. 

  1. Shannon Hudson, as indicated, you have significant prior convictions and appearances.  Whilst a large number of those prior offences were dealt with in the Children’s Court and ‘without conviction’ penalties were imposed, they are still relevant matters for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence.  Your first recorded appearance was at the Dandenong Children’s Court on 9 May 2008, when you would have been 16 years old.  There were two charges, the first being the theft of a bicycle, the second being recklessly cause injury, and you were released on an accountable undertaking for six months and directed to complete the Positive Lifestyle Course run by the Salvation Army.  You were next before the Dandenong Children’s Court on 30 January 2009, for possessing a controlled weapon without excuse, for…

Continue reading R v O'Brien and Hudson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v O'Brien and Hudson [2012] VSC 592
Case
[2012] VSC 592
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two young offenders, O'Brien and Hudson, faced the court in a case involving a severe, unprovoked assault on an Asian student. The attack was not only vicious and prolonged but also qualified as a hate crime, given its racially motivated nature. The case, R v O'Brien and Hudson, was heard in a higher court, where the gravity of the crime warranted significant judicial attention.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the defendants, considering the heinous nature of the crime and their respective backgrounds. The court needed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, especially considering that Hudson had an extensive criminal record, whereas O'Brien had no prior record. The defence argued for a lesser sentence for O'Brien, citing his lack of prior criminal history and the influence of Hudson during the incident.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously weighed the severity of the crime against the defendants' backgrounds. Hudson's extensive prior criminal record and the brutality of the attack led to a sentence of 10 years and 6 months, with a minimum of 8 years to be served before parole eligibility. O'Brien, despite his lack of a prior record, was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months, with a minimum of 2 years and 6 months, acknowledging the mitigating factors but also the seriousness of his participation in the crime. The court's decision underscored the importance of both punishment and the potential for rehabilitation in cases involving hate crimes and severe assaults.

Orders

Orders of the court

Hudson: 10 years 6 months imprisonment – Minimum 8 years. Extensive Prior record.

O’Brien: 4 years 6 months imprisonment – Minimum 2 years 6 months. No prior record.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.