R v Piket - [2006] VSC 238

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1477 of 2006

THE QUEEN

JUSTIN WILLEM PIKET

---

JUDGE:	EAMES JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 July 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Piket
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 238

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Attempted murder – Aggravated burglary – Pleas of guilty – Amphetamine psychosis – Offender aged 25 at time of offences – Prior convictions, but not for offences of violence – Sentenced for attempted murder as serious violent offender – Principle of totality applied – Sentenced to 17 year’s imprisonment for murder; 8 years for attempted murder – 2 years for aggravated burglary – Total effective sentence 20 years and six months’ imprisonment; non-parole period of 15 years and six months - Sentencing Act 1991 – s.6D, 6E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Tinney	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Cash	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Justin Willem Piket, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Eustace Willenberg on 9 June 2005 (Count 1), to aggravated burglary (Count 2), to attempted murder of your father, Willem Piket (Count 3), to possession of a drug of dependence, namely amphetamine (Count 4) and, pursuant to section 359AA of the Crimes Act 1958, you have pleaded guilty to the summary offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, to wit, $650 cash, an offence under s.195 of the Crimes Act.

That last count has been dealt with in this Court with your consent.

The offences were committed on 9 and 10 June 2005. You were then aged 25 years and are now aged 26 years. At that time, you lived with your girlfriend, Rhianna Allcott, in Langwarrin. You had a history of misuse of drugs and alcohol and your abuse of drugs, in particular amphetamine, was to play a significant role in your offending, as I shall later discuss. After being arrested for these offences and questioned by police you told the police in the record of interview, that on the last occasion that you injected amphetamine prior to the offences, it made you feel paranoid, “schizophrenic”. On that occasion, you took one or two grams of amphetamine in one episode.

In the two weeks before the offences were committed Ms Allcott noticed that your mood had changed and you were spending more time away from home. You were speaking aggressively about your parents, initially directing your hostility to your mother and telling Ms Allcott that you were having flashbacks about your childhood, in which you recalled some form of abuse by your father, the details of which you did not describe to her. Prior to the offences, you had told Ms Allcott’s younger brother that you hated your mother because she had abandoned you. When police interviewed you after the offences, you told them that they were motivated by your belief…

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 Piket

Details

AGLC: R v Piket [2006] VSC 238
Case: [2006] VSC 238
Decision Date: 5 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Piket involved the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including murder, attempted murder, and aggravated burglary. The matter was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court. The defendant, at the time of the offences, was 25 years old and had prior convictions, though none specifically for violent offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the defendant’s age, the nature of the crimes committed, and the principle of totality.

The central legal issues for the court were the appropriate sentences for each of the offences committed by the defendant, as well as the application of the principle of totality in sentencing. The court had to balance the severity of the crimes, the defendant's age and criminal history, and the mitigating factor of amphetamine psychosis, which was argued to have influenced the defendant’s actions. The court also considered the sentencing guidelines provided by the Sentencing Act 1991, particularly sections 6D and 6E, which pertain to the principles of sentencing and the treatment of multiple offences.

The court found that the principle of totality warranted a sentence that did not disproportionately increase the overall punishment for the defendant. It was noted that the defendant had no prior convictions for violent offences, and his age at the time of the crimes was a mitigating factor. The court sentenced the defendant to 17 years for the murder charge, 8 years for the attempted murder charge, and 2 years for the aggravated burglary, with the total effective sentence being 20 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years and six months. This decision took into account the seriousness of the offences while also adhering to the overarching principles of sentencing law.

The court’s final orders were that the defendant be sentenced to a total of 20 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years and six months, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing of multiple serious offences.

Orders