R v Parsons and Stocker - [2004] VSCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 128 of 2002

THE QUEEN

DONNA MARIE PARSONS

No. 125 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ANDREW FRANZ STOCKER

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A. and SMITH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	23-25 February 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 May 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 92	1^st Revision – 26 May 2004

---

Criminal law – Murder – Trial judge not required to leave to jury manslaughter as an alternative – Evidence of accomplices – Accused required to establish a witness was an accomplice on balance of probabilities – Accomplice warning not required in the case of an accessory after the fact – Existence of corroboration does not remove an accomplice’s motive to lie – Prosecutor’s opening address introduced facts of which no evidence was led – Judge’s directions prevented miscarriage of justice – Hearsay evidence – Appropriate directions given to jury – Evidence of earlier attempts on life of deceased not propensity evidence – Statements by accused to police – Police did not suspect and ought not to have reasonably suspected accused of having committed an offence.

Sentence - Sentence of 23 years’ with a non-parole period of 18 years’ not manifestly excessive – Earlier attempts on life of deceased not treated as aggravating circumstances – Crimes Act 1958, s.464H.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Parsons	Mr J.P. Dickinson	Slades & Parsons
For the Applicant Stocker	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Lethbridges

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

On 15 September 2000, Paul Parsons returned home after work at about 5.30 p.m. and was brutally murdered in the front rooms of his house. A number of heavy blows with a blunt object to the back of his head left him unconscious and dying, when his throat was cut, quickly killing him. At 8 p.m. the body was discovered by a neighbour who entered the house at the request of the deceased’s 38 year old wife. Two metal bars and a knife were found near the body. DNA analysis showed that blood from the deceased was on one of the metal bars and the knife.

The neighbour called the police and they went to the Parsons’ house. A policewoman, Sergeant Stein, spoke to Mrs Parsons who said that before her return to the house after 8 p.m., she had last been to the house at 2.30 p.m. Mrs Parsons told the police about two earlier attempts upon the life of her husband. On 22 August 2000, the hydraulic brake lines of the deceased’s car were cut while it was parked at the Melbourne Showgrounds. The deceased discovered the cut brake lines after slowly driving the car a short distance. On 24 August, the deceased was pushed off his motorcycle by a person in a passing car. Mrs Parsons told the police that she suspected the man responsible for the attempts was one Dominic Care, a person involved in…

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 Parsons and Stocker

Details

AGLC: R v Parsons and Stocker [2004] VSCA 92
Case: [2004] VSCA 92
Decision Date: 26 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Parsons and Stocker, the defendants were convicted of murder and appealed against their convictions and sentences. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal addressed several critical legal issues, including the requirement for the trial judge to leave manslaughter as an alternative to murder, the need for an accomplice warning, and the sufficiency of the corroboration provided. The court found that the trial judge was not required to leave manslaughter to the jury if the accused did not establish the existence of an accomplice on the balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the court held that an accomplice warning was not necessary for an accessory after the fact. The court also determined that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice and that the evidence provided was adequate for the jury to convict the defendants.

The court examined the evidence presented, including statements made by the accused to police and hearsay evidence, and concluded that the judge provided appropriate directions to the jury regarding the hearsay evidence. The court found that the evidence of earlier attempts on the deceased's life was not propensity evidence and was therefore admissible. The court also held that the police did not suspect, and ought not to have reasonably suspected, the accused of having committed an offence, which was relevant to the admissibility of the accused's statements. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the court considered the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence of 23 years with a non-parole period of 18 years was not manifestly excessive and that the earlier attempts on the deceased's life were not treated as aggravating circumstances. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

Orders