R v Philp - [2016] VSC 486

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0144

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

GARREN JOHN PHILP

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June & 10 August 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 August 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Philp
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 486

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Guilty plea – Assault on victim in course of a robbery – Victim elderly and frail – Victim assaulted in his own home – Victim left injured and alone – Prisoner did not participate in the physical assault but orchestrated the assault by another – Long history of substance abuse – Good work history and strong family support – Prospects of rehabilitation fair – Sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a six year non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Danos	Tony Danos Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Garren John Philp, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Raymond Parker between 6 January 2015 and 13 January 2015, at Bayles in Victoria.

Your co-accused, Daniel O’Donnell and Dean Brooks, have also pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Parker.

At the time of the offending, you were 44 years old. You were living in Pakenham in a house that you owned. A number of other persons were staying or living there, including O’Donnell. You were in a relationship with Brooks’ mother, Jodie. Brooks was 23 years old, had a partner and two young children, but still spent a lot of time with his mother and, I infer, with you.

You were a regular user of cannabis and methamphetamine or ‘ice’. You used ice with both Jodie Brooks and Dean Brooks.

O’Donnell was a very old friend of yours. He was staying with you in order to help you deal with what he believed to be your alcohol problem. He did not use ice and strongly disapproved of its use. However, he was also regular user of cannabis.

The victim, Raymond Parker, had been known to you since around 2007 and to O’Donnell since about 2009.

Mr Parker was a long-time cultivator of cannabis. He had been growing cannabis for about 30 years without being detected by authorities. He regularly sold cannabis to you. You told O’Donnell that you were selling three pounds of cannabis a week for Mr Parker, for about $3,000 per pound.

Mr Parker was living alone in a large rented house outside of Bayles, a small township approximately 76 kilometres south-east of Melbourne. The house is on a 20 acre block set well back from the road, at the end of a long gravel driveway. The house is a two-storey house with a double garage. All of the habitable areas, including the kitchen, dining room, lounge room, the five bedrooms and bathrooms were on the upper level. The ground floor rooms were largely unfurnished as…

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 Philp

Details

AGLC: R v Philp [2016] VSC 486
Case: [2016] VSC 486
Decision Date: 17 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Philp, appealed his sentence for manslaughter following a guilty plea in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The victim, an elderly and frail individual, was assaulted during a robbery in his own home, resulting in his death. The appellant did not directly participate in the assault but orchestrated the crime through another person. The case involved considerations of sentencing for manslaughter, particularly focusing on the nature of the crime, the offender's role, and factors such as the offender's history of substance abuse, employment record, and family support, which were relevant to his prospects of rehabilitation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the gravity of the crime, his role in the offence, and his personal circumstances. The legal issues centred on the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, the role of the offender in the crime, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. The court needed to weigh the appellant's criminal conduct against his potential for rehabilitation, taking into account his history of substance abuse, his employment record, and his family support.

The Supreme Court held that the appropriate sentence was nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The court recognised the heinous nature of the crime, particularly given the victim's age and vulnerability, and the fact that the assault occurred in the victim's own home. However, the court also considered the appellant's role in the crime, his history of substance abuse, his employment record, and his family support, which indicated fair prospects of rehabilitation. The court determined that a sentence of nine years with a six-year non-parole period was appropriate, balancing the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant, Philp, be sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The decision reflects the court's consideration of both the gravity of the crime and the appellant's personal circumstances, aiming for a sentence that appropriately balances punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders