R v Presnell - [2001] VSC 206

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1457 of 2000

THE QUEEN

DALE BRUCE PRESNELL

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 JUNE 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. PRESNELL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 206

---

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter – Extensive criminal history – Ingestion of drugs – Circumstances of aggravation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J. McArdle QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. P. Morrissey	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Dale Bruce Presnell, the jury empanelled in the trial at which you were presented for the murder of Allen West Bollard, at Heidelberg on the 17th day of October 1999, found you not guilty of the commission of that offence, but guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter.

What that means in the context of this matter is that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to kill or to cause really serious injury to your victim, but they were so satisfied that your actions were both unlawful and objectively dangerous in the circumstances. I will return to this formulation of the crime of manslaughter and its significance for sentencing purposes in due course.

Against that background you have admitted that you have appeared before the courts on 11 occasions between 24 April 1992 and 16 October 1998 in relation to a significant number of offences.

In summary you have been convicted of armed robbery; 13 counts of burglary; 20 counts of theft; 11 counts of drug related offences; three counts of assaulting a member of the Police Force in the lawful execution of his duty; two counts of resisting a member of the Police Force in the lawful execution of his duty; attempting to escape from lawful custody; three counts of causing wilful damage; two counts of being found on premises without lawful excuse; behaving in an offensive manner in public; assault with a weapon; two counts of unlawful assault; being in possession of a pistol without a licence; three counts of failing to answer bail; two counts of being an unlicensed driver; two counts of driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified; attempting to commit an indictable offence; going equipped to steal; tampering with a motor vehicle; and making a false report to police.

This history reflects your long-term involvement with the criminal law, the abuse of drugs, and the efforts you employ to avoid the consequences of your behaviour. Yours is indeed a sorry record and one which does not augur well for the future.

The circumstances surrounding the commission of your offence have been canvassed at length during the course of the trial and need only be addressed in relatively brief detail at this stage.

On the night of 16 October 1999 Rebecca Peters and the deceased, who was her de facto husband, were at home with their infant child. At around 8 p.m. Ms Peters was rocking the baby to sleep…

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 Presnell

Details

AGLC: R v Presnell [2001] VSC 206
Case: [2001] VSC 206
Decision Date: 5 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Presnell involved the defendant, Presnell, who faced charges stemming from the death of a fellow inmate while in custody. The death occurred due to an interaction between Presnell's ingestion of drugs and his extensive criminal history, which presented circumstances of aggravation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Presnell's actions and circumstances surrounding the death constituted manslaughter. The court had to consider the extent to which Presnell's ingestion of drugs and his criminal history contributed to the situation, and whether these factors constituted circumstances of aggravation that warranted a manslaughter conviction rather than a lesser charge.

In delivering the judgment, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented regarding Presnell's drug ingestion and criminal background. The court determined that the combination of these factors created a scenario where Presnell's actions were significantly influenced, leading to the death of the other inmate. The court concluded that these circumstances indeed amounted to an aggravation that justified a manslaughter conviction. The court's decision was based on the principle that a person's extensive criminal history and drug use could be considered in assessing the gravity of their actions.

The final orders of the court were that Presnell was found guilty of manslaughter. The court's detailed reasoning underscored the importance of considering the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's history and drug use, in determining the appropriate charge.

Orders