R v Price & Brown - [2023] VSC 347

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0361; S ECR 2021 0339; S ECR 2022 0060

Between:
THE KING
-and-
ANDREW JAMES PRICE	First Accused
-and-
JAKE WILLIAM BROWN	Second Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 June 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Price & Brown
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 347 Second revision: 27 June 2023

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence following sentence indication — Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act — In April 2020, on pretext, SG lured deceased to remote location into clutches of AP and JB believing they would “kick the shit out of him” — AP and JB sent SG down road to wait while they took deceased into bush at gunpoint — Deceased neither kicked nor bashed nor shot — Instead, AB and JB forced deceased to ingest GHB in large quantities — JB left scene while deceased still standing and conscious — AB left deceased while unconscious, stranded and alone — Aim of offending was to warn deceased off vis‑à‑vis AP’s girlfriend and make him walk home alone from remote location — Deceased died from GHB toxicity — Deceased’s partly decomposed body discovered in bush five weeks later — AP and JB originally charged with murder — Important prosecution witness died and much of his recorded evidence excluded — With concurrence of Director of Public Prosecutions, AP and JB then sought sentence indication on manslaughter — Following sentence indication, AP and JB each pleaded guilty to manslaughter, despite arguable defence — AP motivated by jealousy over deceased’s ongoing relationship with AP’s girlfriend — AP’s arm previously broken by deceased in dispute about girlfriend — AP aged 50, with three children — AB has no prior convictions — AP’s second wife died of cancer in 2016 — AP retrenched from long-term employment in 2018 — AP descended into illicit drug abuse thereafter — AP diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but good prognosis, albeit complications from deep vein thrombosis — JB recruited by AP to assist — JB aged 31, with two young children — JB has prior convictions, including for violence — AP and JB both remorseful — Both remained drug-free and worked solidly while on bail — Both have strong prospects of rehabilitation — Current sentencing practices — Totality — Concession as to concurrent sentences for possession of unregistered firearms — AP lost two months’ pre‑sentence detention on account of subsequent conviction resulting in two-month prison sentence during period of remand on manslaughter — Parity among co-offenders — JB’s role less serious than AB’s, but difference partly offset by other considerations — AP and JB each returned to custody pending sentence — AP sentenced on manslaughter to seven‑and‑a‑half years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four-and-a-half years — AP sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment on each unregistered firearm offence, concurrent with each other and with manslaughter sentence — But for AP’s pleas…

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 & Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Price & Brown [2023] VSC 347
Case: [2023] VSC 347
Decision Date: 22 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Price & Brown, the defendants, AP and JB, were sentenced by the County Court of Victoria following their pleas of guilty to manslaughter. The victims were lured to a remote location under false pretenses by SG in April 2020. AP and JB, who were armed, forced the deceased to ingest a lethal amount of GHB, leading to the deceased’s death from toxicity. The deceased’s body was found weeks later, in a partly decomposed state. Initially charged with murder, AP and JB had their charges reduced to manslaughter following the death of a key prosecution witness, which led to the exclusion of significant recorded evidence.

The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for manslaughter, considering factors such as the totality principle, parity among co-offenders, and the defendants’ respective roles in the crime. Both defendants showed remorse and had been drug-free and employed while on bail. AP, who had a history of illicit drug use and personal hardships, and JB, who had prior convictions, presented unique circumstances that influenced the sentencing. The court also considered the concession regarding concurrent sentences for possession of unregistered firearms.

The court concluded that AP should serve seven-and-a-half years in prison, with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years, in addition to seven days for each firearms offence, concurrent with the manslaughter sentence. This totalled an effective sentence of ten-and-a-half years with a non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. JB was sentenced to seven years with a non-parole period of four years, with an effective sentence of ten years if not for his plea of guilty. The sentences reflected the principles of parity and the totality of the offending, taking into account the unique mitigating factors for each defendant.

Orders