R v Pp
[2002] VSC 550
•4 December 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
No. 1489 of 2001
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| PP |
---
JUDGE: | NETTLE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 December 2002 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 4 December 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v PP | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 550 | |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C. Ryan | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B.J. Bourke with Ms A.C. Fox | Haines & Polites |
HIS HONOUR:
On the first day of trial, 18 November of this year, I made an order extending until further order the bail granted by Beach J on 6 September 2001.
This afternoon the jury has brought in a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. It is proposed that the matter be adjourned until on or about Wednesday of next week for further hearing on plea and sentence. Application is now made by counsel on behalf of the prisoner that in the meantime he be allowed to remain on bail at home with his family, if need be on more stringent conditions than those which presently apply.
It is recognised that the circumstances now are fundamentally different to those which obtained before the jury brought in its verdict. It is submitted on behalf of the prisoner, however, that there is no risk of flight and no suggestion of such by the Crown, and that the preparation of the argument upon plea and sentence would be aided if the prisoner were able to continue to attend upon the psychologist, Dr Wendy Crouch, in whose treatment he has been now for some months.
The application has been opposed by the Crown. It is contended that the verdict having now been brought in, it is appropriate that bail be vacated and that the prisoner be remanded in custody to appear before the court on the date to be fixed for plea and sentence.
The verdict having only just been brought in, time and reflection will be needed in order to determine the basis upon which the jury came to its conclusion that the accused was guilty of manslaughter. As matters were put to the jury, however, presumably it can only be on the basis that he was guilty of an unlawful and dangerous act, but without intent to kill or inflict really serious physical injury, or that he had that intent but was so much provoked by what was done by or in circumstances where the deceased might be thought responsible, as to lose self control to the point of forming the intent to inflict really serious physical injury.
Either way, it seems to me that despite the relative youth of the prisoner and despite the most unhappy circumstances of the whole event, the offence must be regarded as falling into the category of a serious manslaughter.
In those circumstances, I do not think it appropriate that he remain on bail until the further hearing of the matter, despite the fact there might be some inconvenience and perhaps even difficulty caused in the preparation of further argument. I am not persuaded that they are sufficient reason to overcome what I regard as being the prima facie position that he should now be remanded in custody to appear before the court when the matter next comes back for hearing.
Accordingly the orders which I propose be made are that the order which I made on 18 November 2002 extending until further order the bail granted by His Honour Beach J, on 6 September 2001, be vacated and that the prisoner be remanded in custody to appear before the court on a date to be fixed, but which at the moment I take subject to Mr Ryan's suggestion, to be next Wednesday.
MR BOURKE: He is happy with that Your Honour. Would Your Honour make it part of the order, I haven't got the 6th in front of me Your Honour, but - - -
HIS HONOUR: 276 do you mean?
MR BOURKE: Yes, I think Your Honour has to make it the order that he be remanded in a Youth Training Centre.
HIS HONOUR: That I will certainly do.
MR BOURKE: Section 130 Your Honour: "If the child is remanded in custody by a court a bail justice, the child must be placed in a remand centre as otherwise provided by the regulations.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR BOURKE: It would seem that it is self-executing, that you don't have to but I urge that Your Honour would say that part of the order is that he be taken to a remand centre. We have ascertained Your Honour, that the place in Parkville - - -
HIS HONOUR: I shall declare that the prisoner is a child for the purposes of sub-s.(1) of s.130, of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and thus, in accordance with its provisions, must be placed in a remand centre within the meaning of that section.
MR BOURKE: I am grateful Your Honour.
---
0
0
0