R v Parker - [2013] VSC 479

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0077 of 2013

THE QUEEN

SCOTT ALAN PARKER

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 August 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 September 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Parker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 479

---

Plea - Manslaughter – Criminal Damage – Summary offence of breach of family violence order: Manslaughter - One punch – History of assaults – On suspended sentence and family violence order at time of incident.

Sentence: Criminal damage 8 months - Manslaughter 8 years - Family violence order 6 months.

Total sentence 8 years 6 months – minimum of 6 years 3 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Hassan	The office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Gurvich	Emma Turnbull Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Scott Alan Parker, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Beau Daniel Lawson by unlawful and dangerous act, on 29 November 2012. You have also pleaded guilty to one count of criminal damage which arose out of the same set of circumstances.

You are now 26 years of age, having been born on 26 September 1986 and will shortly turn 27. The deceased man, Beau Lawson, was 31 years of age at the time he died, having been born on 3 August 1981. I also have to deal with you for a relevant breach of a family violence intervention order, I say relevant, as the breach of the family violence intervention order appears to be the basis of the circumstances that led to this tragic event. That is a summary offence and you have consented to the jurisdiction of this court.

Your prior criminal history is relevant to this matter. The first two matters in your criminal history from 2003 were Children’s Court matters in October and December 2003 – for a charge of theft for which you were convicted and detained in a youth training centre for two months; and a charge of escaping from a prison/police jail, theft of a motor vehicle, unlicensed driving and theft from a motor vehicle (two counts) which resulted in you receiving six months’ detention in a youth training centre on each charge, with a total effective sentence of six months. They are not particularly relevant, and I will not take account of them for the purpose of this sentence.

From 2005 onwards though, there is a pattern displayed within your criminal history that is disturbing. On 16 August 2005 at the Frankston Magistrates' Court you were convicted of the following charges: assault police; resist police; act in a disruptive/abusive manner; recklessly cause injury and fail to answer bail; as well as drunk in a public place. In respect of all charges, apart from being drunk in a public place, you were convicted and placed on a community based order for 12 months to perform 70 hours unpaid community work over a period of six months,…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2013] VSC 479
Case: [2013] VSC 479
Decision Date: 11 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Parker, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, criminal damage, and a breach of a family violence order. The incident occurred while the defendant was on a suspended sentence and had a family violence order in place, stemming from a history of assaults. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which delivered its judgment on the legal issues presented.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were the appropriate sentences for each of the defendant’s convictions. The court had to consider the seriousness of the manslaughter offence, the defendant’s history of violence, and the breach of the family violence order. The court also had to determine whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, and what the total sentence should be, including any minimum non-parole periods.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors of each offence. It found that the manslaughter offence, involving a single punch, was particularly serious given the defendant’s history of violence and the fact that he was on a suspended sentence at the time. The court also noted the breach of the family violence order, which demonstrated a clear disregard for legal obligations designed to protect the victim. The court decided to impose an eight-month sentence for criminal damage, an eight-year sentence for manslaughter, and a six-month sentence for the breach of the family violence order. The total sentence was eight years and six months, with a minimum non-parole period of six years and three months.

The final orders of the court mandated that the sentences for manslaughter and the breach of the family violence order were to run concurrently with each other, while the sentence for criminal damage was to run consecutively to the other sentences. This decision ensured that the defendant would serve a significant period in custody, reflecting the gravity of his offences and the need to protect the community.

Orders