R v PSJ - [2004] VSC 502

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1472 of 2004

THE QUEEN

PSJ

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 November 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 November 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v PSJ
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 502

---

SENTENCE – Youthful Offender – Psychiatric Illness – Whether suitable for order as to detention in Youth Training Centre – Whether pre-sentence detention to be taken into account - R v Hill.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Ms K Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Montgomery	Bernie Balmer & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Ms P, you have pleaded guilty to one count that on 22 January 2004 that without lawful excuse you intentionally caused serious injury to Anne Lynette Fenton.

The circumstances of the incident can be briefly described as follows. At the time of this offence you were aged 16 years, your date of birth being 14 October 1987. You were at your home in Sunbury on that afternoon, Thursday, 22 January 2004. Ms Fenton, who shared the house with you as part of a transitional Housing Scheme programme conducted by the Hume City Council, had gone out during the afternoon to watch a film at a nearby cinema. On returning home at 7.15 p.m., she went to her bedroom and went to sleep. At about 8.30 p.m. Ms Fenton got up and went to the kitchen to wash dishes that she had left there from the previous day. She was aware that you were in your bedroom but she did not speak to you.

As she was doing the dishes, she felt sharp blows to the back of her neck and realised that she was being stabbed. She turned to see who was inflicting the blows and noticed you standing there behind her with a bloodied knife in your hand. Ms Fenton said to you, “What the hell was that for?” and you replied, “I told you to leave”. You then continued to attack Ms Fenton, stabbing her a total of 17 times, she receiving wounds to the head, neck, hands, breast and stomach.

The final stab wound executed by you was to Ms Fenton’s upper arm. This caused the blade of the knife that you were using to break, leaving the blade inside the victim’s arm. You then left the scene taking with you the knife handle. She staggered to nearby houses to seek assistance. She finally gained assistance at No. 100 Paisley Street, Sunbury and was shown to the bathroom where she waited until the ambulance arrived. At this point Ms Fenton removed the knife blade from her arm. She was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where she received emergency surgery to life threatening injuries before being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital.

After this incident you attended at the house of a friend, Renee Weiss, and Renee’s mother Susan,…

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 PSJ

Details

AGLC: R v PSJ [2004] VSC 502
Case: [2004] VSC 502
Decision Date: 29 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v PSJ, the defendant, a youthful offender diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, was convicted and sentenced. The primary dispute was whether the defendant was suitable for detention in a Youth Training Centre, considering his psychiatric condition, and whether his pre-sentence detention should be taken into account in the sentencing process. The matter was determined in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction.

The court had to decide whether the defendant's psychiatric condition made it inappropriate to impose a sentence involving detention in a Youth Training Centre, and if his pre-sentence detention should be factored into the sentencing. This required consideration of the principles established in R v Hill and other relevant legal precedents.

The court examined the defendant's psychiatric condition and its impact on his suitability for detention in a Youth Training Centre. It considered the defendant's age and the principle that custodial sentences should be avoided for young offenders unless absolutely necessary. The court also assessed whether the pre-sentence detention should be credited in the overall sentencing, as per the guidelines in R v Hill. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant's psychiatric illness was a significant factor that warranted a non-custodial sentence and that his pre-sentence detention should be taken into account.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a non-custodial penalty, considering his psychiatric condition and the principles outlined in R v Hill. It determined that the defendant should not be detained in a Youth Training Centre and that his pre-sentence detention should be credited in the overall sentencing.

Orders