R v Peters - [2005] VSC 373

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1410 of 2005

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN PHILLIP PETERS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stephen Phillip Peters
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 373

---

Criminal Law - Sentencing – intentionally causing serious injury – prisoner serving sentence slashing back of fellow prisoner - considerations of totality – differing opinions of psychiatrists - cumulation – fixing of new parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Elston S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Dixon	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Stephen Peters. You have pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury. On Sunday 21 March 2004, you were sharing a cell at the Melbourne Assessment Prison with a 26 year old man. I will refer to him after this as your cellmate.

On that Sunday, another prisoner in the same unit had attempted to hang himself. You and your cellmate were locked down in your cell from shortly after 4 p.m. You were on the bottom bunk. Your cellmate was on the top bunk. Without saying what you were doing to your cellmate, or why, you started to cut your forearm with a sharp blade extracted from a safety razor. The blood had started to run from the cut onto the floor at a time when your cellmate chose to get off the top bunk in order to go to the toilet in the cell. Your cellmate saw the blood and the razor blade as he was getting down. Your cellmate asked you to give him the blade. You said to him: “I’m the devil. I’m here to kill you.” Your cellmate thought it prudent to summon help. He reached out and pushed the intercom button. His doing so necessitated his stretching across partly in front of you. You still had the razor blade in your hand. You chose to use it as a weapon on your cellmate. You aimed at his neck. He turned his back. You slashed his back twice with the razor blade. He then used a chair to protect himself until prison officers came. Your cellmate had to have 28 stitches inserted into the two long, but not deep, wounds to his back. You said later to the police that you had not been taking your medication for some days, that you could become violent after not taking medication, that you had been hearing voices, that you had cut yourself before your cellmate had interrupted you, and that when he did so you had tried to kill him by cutting him to the neck.

You have admitted to committing a serious offence. Only a sentence of imprisonment could be imposed. However, the events of 21 March 2004 have to be seen in the context of a number of matters,…

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 Peters

Details

AGLC: R v Peters [2005] VSC 373
Case: [2005] VSC 373
Decision Date: 23 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Peters, was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a fellow prisoner. Peters was already serving a sentence in prison when he slashed the back of another inmate. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine the appropriate sentence and parole period for Peters. The appeal was brought by Peters, who sought to challenge both the severity of his sentence and the length of the parole period imposed.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate in the circumstances, and if not, what the appropriate sentence and parole period should be. The court was required to consider the totality principle, which involves balancing the severity of the crime with the length of the sentence, and the principle of cumulation, which involves determining whether multiple sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. The court also needed to consider the differing opinions of psychiatrists about Peters' mental health and how this should influence the sentence and parole period.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was too severe and did not take into account the totality principle. The court noted that Peters had already been serving a sentence for another crime at the time of the attack, and that the sentence for the current crime should not be so severe as to make it impossible for him to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. The court also found that the parole period imposed by the lower court was too long and did not take into account the principle of cumulation. The court ordered that a new parole period be fixed, taking into account all relevant factors, including Peters' mental health and the need to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were that Peters' sentence be reduced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years, and that a new parole period be fixed at five years. The court also ordered that the new parole period commence from the date of the original sentencing, rather than from the date of the appeal, in order to give Peters credit for the time he had already spent in prison.

Orders