R v Price - [2016] VSC 105

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0116

THE QUEEN

SEAN CHRISTIAN PRICE

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	14 December 2015; 18 February 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 March 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Price
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 105

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder - Robbery – Attempted theft - Rape - Pleas of guilty – Victims chosen at random - Remorse, absence of – Serious criminal history – Supervision order made pursuant to Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Personality disorder – Principles in R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269 not enlivened – Serious violent offender – Sentencing Act 1991 – Community protection – Sentence of life imprisonment - Non-parole period – Considerations in fixing – Mercy.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Silbert SC Ms M Williams SC with Ms J Warren	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M Fox & Prisoner in person	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Sean Christian Price, on 25 August 2015 you pleaded guilty in this Court to four offences on the indictment. Charge 1 is a charge of the murder of Masa Vukotic on 17 March 2015. Charge 2 is a charge of the robbery of Toan Nguyen on 19 March 2015. Charge 3 is a charge of the attempted theft of a motor vehicle on the same date. Charge 4 is a charge of the rape of BC, also on 19 March 2015.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is 15 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for attempted theft is 5 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for rape is 25 years’ imprisonment.

On 14 December 2015, I heard an opening address and submissions from senior counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I also heard, at least in part, a plea from Ms Fox of counsel on your behalf until you terminated her services before the proceedings were completed. I then heard submissions from you in person on that date and the day following.

On 17 February 2016, the prosecution presented further written submissions in relation to whether you should be sentenced as a serious violent offender and you in turn provided a written response to those submissions. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these offences.

Circumstances of offending

At the time of these very serious offences you were aged 31 years. You are now 32 years. At the time you committed these offences you were living in the community at a unit in Burnewang Street Albion despite your serious criminal history, being on bail for outstanding offences and the existence of a 10 year supervision order made in the County Court in 2012. You had been living there since 2 October 2014, some five months before you committed these offences. The 10 year supervision order…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2016] VSC 105
Case: [2016] VSC 105
Decision Date: 18 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Price was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Mr Price, was convicted of multiple serious offences, including murder, robbery, attempted theft, and rape. The victims were chosen at random, and Mr Price exhibited no remorse for his actions. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Mr Price, who had a serious criminal history and a diagnosed personality disorder, but poor prospects of rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Price, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, his criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court was required to balance the principles of community protection and deterrence with the need to consider any mitigating factors, such as the possibility of mercy. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009.

In delivering the sentence, the court found that Mr Price was a serious violent offender with no remorse for his crimes. The court noted that the principles in R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 269 were not applicable in this case. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period, considering the need for community protection and the circumstances of the offences. The court took into account the aggravating factors, such as the random selection of victims and the absence of remorse, as well as the mitigating factors, such as the possibility of mercy. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences and Mr Price's criminal history.

The court ordered that Mr Price be detained under a supervision order pursuant to the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, due to his poor prospects of rehabilitation and the risk he posed to the community. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

Orders