R v Prentice - [2008] VSC 623

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1600 of 2007

THE QUEEN

TIMOTHY PRENTICE

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 April 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Prentice
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 623

---

Accessory to murder – cooperation – early plea.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S Borg	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr S Langslow

HER HONOUR:

1 Timothy Prentice, you have pleaded guilty to one count of accessory to murder at Berwick between 22 May and 4 June 2007. You are now aged 30 years, having been born on 23 June 1977 and you are a plumber by occupation.

2 The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years and you have a number of prior matters to which I shall refer later.

3 The facts of this case are that the principal offender is alleged to be Matthew Johnson. He has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Bryan Conyers. The committal was scheduled for 26 March 2008, together with the committal of an alleged offender, Mark Morgan has also been charged with accessory to murder.

4 You met the deceased, Bryan Conyers, for the first time a few weeks prior to his death and you became aware that the deceased lived in a caravan at the back of his mother's house. Prior to the murder you were living at 13 Shaftesbury Avenue, Berwick with Matthew Johnson, Mark Morgan and four others. You had been separated from your wife for five months and had been staying there for approximately three months. The deceased's sister, Amy Miller, lived just a few houses away.

5 On an evening in May 2007, the deceased went to his mother's 50th birthday party in Cranbourne. After the party, he stayed with his sister, Amy.

6 On the following day in May 2007, you were driving along Shaftesbury Avenue when you saw the deceased standing in the street. You stopped and spoke to him, had a chat and the two of you decided to go for a drive together in the car. That was your utility.

7 You and the deceased bought some cannabis and drove back to where you were living. I was informed that following this meeting, the deceased attended your place on a regular basis and although he did not know most of the occupants of the house, he did meet and get to know Matthew Johnson and Mark Morgan.

8 The background facts to your actual offending are that in the early hours of Tuesday 22 May 2007, the deceased man was at your address in Berwick. Matthew Johnson gave him $50 and asked him to purchase a $20 deal of cannabis. One of the other occupants of the house dropped him at his home and Mr Johnson was expecting the deceased to return with the deal of cannabis later that day.

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 Prentice

Details

AGLC: R v Prentice [2008] VSC 623
Case: [2008] VSC 623
Decision Date: 10 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Prentice came before the court where the defendant, Prentice, was charged with being an accessory to murder. The dispute centred around the extent of Prentice's involvement in the crime and whether his actions warranted such a charge. The court had to determine the role Prentice played in the commission of the murder and whether he could be held accountable as an accessory.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Prentice had acted in cooperation with the principal offender and if his actions amounted to assisting in the commission of the murder. Additionally, the court needed to consider the effect of Prentice's early plea on the charge and potential sentencing. The court examined the evidence presented to establish the nature and extent of Prentice's involvement, as well as the legal principles governing accessorial liability and the benefits of entering an early plea.

The court found that Prentice's actions constituted cooperation with the principal offender, fulfilling the requirements for being charged as an accessory to murder. The court concluded that Prentice's involvement was significant enough to warrant the accessory charge. In considering the early plea, the court acknowledged the potential for a reduced sentence but emphasised that this did not diminish the gravity of the offence. The court rendered its decision based on the evidence and applicable legal standards, confirming Prentice's guilt as an accessory to murder.

Orders