R v Parry - [2016] VSC 685

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0044

THE QUEEN

DANIEL NATHAN PARRY

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 July, 10 August and 12 September
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Parry
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 685

---

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Murder – Offender believed victim was responsible for burglary and theft at his home – Offender, in company with two others, broke into victim’s home and attacked the sleeping victim with a bat – Victim produced a knife and the offender used it to stab the victim twenty-one times – Accepted by prosecution that offender intended to inflict really serious injury but not to cause death – Offender affected by ‘ice’ at the time of offending – Use of ice neither mitigating or aggravating – Mid-range example of the offence of murder – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Relevant prior convictions – Sentenced as a serious violent offender – ss 6D, 6F Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC Ms S Coombes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Dempsey Mr S Tovey	Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Daniel Parry, you pleaded guilty to the murder of Garry Coulson. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The Facts

In relation to the circumstances of the murder, much of what happened is not in dispute. Through your counsel, you accepted the summary of facts given by the prosecution at your plea hearing. I will set out an abbreviated version of that summary.

On Thursday 25 June 2015, you contacted police and said that your house in Bacchus Marsh had been burgled and that some of your property had been stolen. In your record of interview for the current offence, you said that ‘heaps of stuff’ was stolen in that burglary, including a couple of televisions, a couple of laptops, and an IPad.[1]
[1]Parry’s Record of Interview (‘ROI’) conducted on 7 July 2016, Q&A 146.

You believed that Coulson was responsible for the burglary and theft but you didn’t have hard evidence.[2]
[2]Ibid Q&A 336.

On Sunday 5 July 2015, you texted Bernadette Lees, one of Coulson’s sisters, trying to find out his whereabouts. You were told he was at an address in Werribee. You then sent your then girlfriend, Elise Mauger, the following two texts:

(At 3:24pm) Just got the address on that very helpful guy that did the work on my place while I was at work two weeks ago. So I’m popping over to say “thanks”
(At 3.25pm) Getting boys together but everyone away or not answering. Can you think of anyone staunch I can take with me?

At 3.27pm, your girlfriend replied:

No not really [….] Edward… as much as he’s a little shit he can rumble though.

Mauger’s reference to Edward was a reference…

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 Parry

Details

AGLC: R v Parry [2016] VSC 685
Case: [2016] VSC 685
Decision Date: 11 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Parry, was convicted of the murder of an individual who he believed had burgled his home and stolen from him. Parry, along with two other individuals, broke into the victim's home and attacked the sleeping victim with a bat. The victim managed to produce a knife, which Parry then used to stab the victim twenty-one times. The prosecution accepted that Parry intended to inflict really serious injury but not to cause death. Parry was affected by methamphetamine (commonly referred to as 'ice') at the time of the offence. The court had to determine whether Parry's use of ice should be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor and assess the appropriate sentence given Parry's remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and relevant prior convictions.

The court was required to examine the role of methamphetamine in the sentencing process, specifically whether it should be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, taking into account Parry's remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and relevant prior convictions. The court also had to determine whether Parry should be sentenced as a serious violent offender under sections 6D and 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991.

The court found that Parry's use of ice did not constitute a mitigating or aggravating factor. The court classified the case as a mid-range example of the offence of murder, taking into account Parry's guilty plea, remorse, reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, and relevant prior convictions. The court also found that Parry should be sentenced as a serious violent offender under sections 6D and 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court ultimately sentenced Parry to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty-two years.

Orders