R v Phillips - [2010] VSC 359

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 93 of 2010

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PHILLIPS

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 August 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Phillips
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 359

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Plea of guilty – Victim stabbed and bashed to death by son – Intoxication of offender neither an aggravating nor mitigating feature – Serious violent offender – Sentence of 23 years imprisonment – Non-parole period of 19 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Dann	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Christopher Edward Phillips, on the afternoon of 6 June 2009 you stabbed and bashed your 73 year old father to death in his home. On 13 August 2010 you pleaded guilty to that murder.

The attack on 6 June 2009 was not the first time you had violently assaulted your father. In May 1998 your father attended Frankston Hospital after being attacked by you. An attack on him in October 1999 resulted in your being convicted of intentionally causing serious injury and other offences for which you received a jail sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. In July 2001 your father was taken to the Frankston Hospital twice on the one night as a consequence of separate attacks by you. Those incidents resulted in further convictions for intentionally causing serious injury and other offences and imprisonment of 2 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 18 months. Finally, in June 2004 your father was again taken to Frankston Hospital after an attack on him by you as a result of which you were convicted of recklessly causing injury for which you were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with a sentence you were then undergoing.

At the time of your fatal assault on your father you were under the influence of alcohol and, at least, illegally obtained prescription medication.

You are now 37 years of age. You have a history of substance abuse which begins before you were even a teenager. You have abused alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, prescription drugs, and, for certain periods of your life, magic mushrooms and heroin, and you did for a period engage in chemical sniffing.

The prior convictions I have referred to concerning your father are not your only convictions for offences of violence. You also have prior convictions for intentionally or recklessly causing injury in 1994 for which you received a suspended sentence, for intentionally or recklessly causing injury in 1997 for which you were sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment, assault with a weapon and other offences in 1997 for which you were sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, robbery and other offences in 1999 for which you were sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, and recklessly causing injury…

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 Phillips

Details

AGLC: R v Phillips [2010] VSC 359
Case: [2010] VSC 359
Decision Date: 20 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Phillips, the High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing a sentence imposed upon the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his father. The victim, the appellant's father, was stabbed and bashed to death during a violent altercation. The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account various factors, including the nature of the crime and the intoxication of the offender at the time of the incident.

The court examined whether the appellant's intoxication should be considered an aggravating or mitigating factor in sentencing. It was established that the intoxication did not influence the appellant's culpability, and therefore, it was not deemed an aggravating or mitigating feature. Additionally, the court assessed the appellant's history of serious violent offending and the circumstances surrounding the murder. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant was a serious violent offender and imposed a sentence of 23 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of sentencing in murder cases, taking into account the severity of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the absence of any mitigating factors. The court emphasised that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding that it was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such a serious offence.

Orders