R v Potter - [2012] VSC 511

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

SCI 2011 0115

THE QUEEN

JAMES JOHN NATHAN POTTER

---

JUDGE:	ALMOND J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	2, 5-9, 13, 14, 16, 19-22 March 2012 (trial) 11 and 17 October 2012 (plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 October 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Potter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 511	Revised 31 October 2012

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Victim shot three times – Offender suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder – Whether the term of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the offender due to mental impairment – Whether the term of imprisonment would adversely effect offender’s health due to mental impairment – Mistreatment of the victim’s body – No remorse shown by the offender – Sentence of 24 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes	Haines and Polites

HIS HONOUR:

James John Nathan Potter, you have been found guilty of the murder of Penelope Louise Pratt. I must now sentence you for that offence.

Background to and circumstances of the offending

On 28 November 2010, Ms Penny Pratt was admitted to a psychiatric ward at the Maroondah Hospital as a voluntary patient. It was exactly six months since the death of her partner from a drug overdose. Ms Pratt told one of her friends who visited her at the hospital that evening that she intended to spend the night there.

At about 10.00pm that evening, you and your co-offender Aaron Gibson, went to Ms Pratt’s residence in Boronia. When you discovered she was not at home you went to see Mr Flannery, her neighbour and friend, and enquired as to Ms Pratt’s whereabouts saying that you had some money for her.

Mr Flannery told you that Ms Pratt was at the Maroondah Hospital, telephoned her in your presence and told her that you had some money for her.

You took the phone and had a short conversation with Ms Pratt. At the end of the conversation you gave the phone back to Mr Flannery and said you were on your way to see her.

A short time later, you arrived at the Maroondah Hospital and managed to enter the building. You spoke to the receptionist in the foyer who explained that you should not have been in the foyer because the doors were locked at 10.00pm. She asked you to leave. You asked to see your sister. You were demanding, forceful and swearing. The receptionist notified security and in due course two security guards attended at the reception area and asked you to leave the premises. You asked where you could find a phone to call your sister. You were told you were not allowed to go inside the hospital because it was after the time allowed, and after some discussion you were asked to step…

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 Potter

Details

AGLC: R v Potter [2012] VSC 511
Case: [2012] VSC 511
Decision Date: 30 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Potter, was convicted of murder and brought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The victim had been shot three times, and the offender suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The legal issues before the court were whether the term of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the offender due to their mental impairment and whether the term of imprisonment would adversely affect the offender’s health due to their mental impairment. Additionally, the court needed to consider the mistreatment of the victim’s body and the offender’s lack of remorse. The court held that the offender’s mental impairment did not mitigate the severity of the crime and that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court also found that the offender had shown no remorse for their actions and that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 24 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was upheld.

Orders