R v Pp - [2002] VSC 578

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1489 of 2001

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29 November, 2, 3, 4, 11 December 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 December 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v PP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 578

---

Criminal law – sentencing – manslaughter – young person involved in melee – stabbing – sentence of six years with non-parole period of four years.
Children and Young Persons Act 1989, ss. 137, 138, 139, 244 and 276; Sentencing Act ss. 3, 5(4) and 32.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Chris Ryan	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Brian Bourke with Ms Amanda Fox	Haines & Polities

HIS HONOUR:

PP, on 18 November 2002 you were arraigned on a charge that you did at Kew on 24 August 2001 murder DH, and after a trial which lasted 11 days the jury found you not guilty of his murder but guilty of his manslaughter. It is now my task to sentence you.

The facts

The circumstances of your offence were examined at length during the course of your trial. It is necessary, however, to restate some of them for the purposes of sentence.

You were born of 15 September 1985 and at the time of your offence you were still only 15 years of age and a student at [a] Secondary School. DH was born on 8 April 1985 and at the time of his death he was just 16 years of age and a student at [another] Secondary School. On 24 August 2001 you stabbed DH twice in the back with a filleting knife and thereby caused his death. You did so in the course of a melee which arose when DH and three other boys sought you out to fight you.

These events appear to have had their origins in a Carey Grammar School year 11 “after party” held on 17 August 2001. The party was conducted in a warehouse somewhere in the Docklands, between about midnight on 17 August 2001 and 4.00 am the following morning. The price of admission was $35.00 per head and for that the organisers provided a dance floor, recorded music and unlimited supplies of a limited range of alcoholic drinks. There were approximately 400 young people present at the party, including one by the name of Emlin Olaver, a student at Trinity Grammar School. You went to the party with five or so of your friends having purchased your tickets in advance.

Somewhere towards 4.00 am a scuffle broke out on the dance floor when Olaver stood on the foot of one of your friends, Andrew Filippopoulos, and punches began to be thrown. By all accounts you were not in any way responsible for the trouble and indeed you did your best to break it up when it started. But somehow…

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 Pp

Details

AGLC: R v Pp [2002] VSC 578
Case: [2002] VSC 578
Decision Date: 23 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pp, the appellant, a young person, was convicted of manslaughter following a stabbing incident that occurred during a large-scale melee. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the appropriate sentencing for the appellant, considering the unique circumstances and statutory provisions that applied to young offenders.

The legal issues before the court included the application of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and the Sentencing Act. The court was required to balance the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation with the need to consider the appellant's age and circumstances at the time of the offence. The court also needed to determine an appropriate non-parole period in accordance with statutory provisions and case law.

The court considered the appellant's age, the nature of the offence, and the statutory framework governing young offenders. It emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and deterrence while acknowledging the appellant's age and potential for reform. The court concluded that a sentence of six years with a non-parole period of four years was appropriate. This sentence aimed to achieve the objectives of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender, while also considering the provisions of the relevant legislation.

The court's final orders included a custodial sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, for the appellant. The decision highlighted the need to tailor sentences for young offenders, taking into account their age, the circumstances of the offence, and the statutory framework that applies.

Orders