R v Parr

Case [2009] VSC 166 29 April 2009

Self-Defence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1719 of 2008

THE QUEEN

ROBERT SEAN PARR

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2009
DATE OF RULING:	29 April 2009
DATE OF REASONS:	7 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Parr
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 166

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Self-Defence – Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 – application of statutory self-defence and common law self-defence in homicide cases.

R v Pepper [2007] VSC 234 and R v Gould [2007] VSC 420, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Borg	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the accused	Mr J Kelly	Leanne Warren and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

On Monday 3 September 2007 the accused, Robert Parr, stabbed Vevil Aruma. The stabbing occurred in a unit in Frankston. Mr Aruma later died in hospital. Whilst there were witnesses who were present in the unit with Mr Parr and Mr Aruma shortly before the stabbing, there were no witnesses who saw the physical confrontation begin. Mr Parr did not give any account of the circumstances to police. He made admissions to others to the effect that he had stabbed Mr Aruma after Mr Aruma had attacked him. Mr Parr was charged with murder and pleaded not guilty. His trial before the jury began on 21 April 2009.

Prior to charging the jury I heard submissions on the issue of whether the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 alone governs self-defence in relation to homicides occurring after 23 November 2005, as previously held by me in R v Pepper,[1] or whether the common law of self-defence also continues to apply, as held by Coghlan J in R v Gould.[2] The Victorian Criminal Charge Book published by the Judicial College of Victoria also suggests that there is concurrent operation of both the statute and the common law.[3]
[1][2007] VSC 234.
[2][2007] VSC 420.
[3]The Charge Book currently deals with the issue at 8.9.1.1 paras. 64 - 70 and at 8.9.2.1 paras. 68 - 71.

In R v Pepper I set out some of the relevant history in the context of a case that concerned attempted murder. I will not repeat what I said there. In this matter it was submitted on behalf of the Crown that R v Pepper was correctly decided and that I should charge the jury on the basis that the Crimes (Homicide) Act sets out completely and exclusively the law on self-defence. Counsel for the defence submitted that I should follow R v Gould and the Charge Book. The substance of the submission made on behalf of the defence was that since R v Gould the practice in the Trial Division has been to charge on the basis of both the statute and the common law and that it would be unfair to Mr Parr to depart from that practice in his case, the Court of Appeal not having yet resolved…

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 Parr

Details

AGLC: R v Parr [2009] VSC 166
Case: [2009] VSC 166
Decision Date: 29 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Parr involved a dispute over the application of self-defence laws in a homicide case. The defendant, Parr, was charged with the murder of another individual, and his defence was grounded on both statutory and common law principles of self-defence. The case hinged on whether Parr's actions were justified under the statutory provisions of the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005, and whether the common law principles of self-defence also applied to his defence.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the statutory self-defence provisions in the context of a homicide charge, and how these provisions interact with the common law principles of self-defence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the statutory provisions entirely displaced the common law or if they supplemented it in cases involving the use of lethal force. The court also needed to assess the proportionality and reasonableness of Parr's actions in light of the perceived threat.

The court concluded that the statutory provisions of the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 provided a comprehensive framework for the defence of self-defence in homicide cases, effectively replacing the common law principles. This interpretation was influenced by the reasoning in previous cases such as R v Pepper and R v Gould, where the court had considered similar issues. The court found that Parr's actions were not proportionate to the threat he faced, and thus his claim of self-defence under the statutory provisions failed. Consequently, the court rejected Parr's defence and found him guilty of murder.

The final orders of the court were that Parr be convicted of murder and remanded in custody pending sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of a careful assessment of the circumstances and proportionality of the response in self-defence cases, particularly when lethal force is used. The decision underscores the need for a balanced approach in applying both statutory and common law principles in such complex cases.

Orders