R v Pyrczak - [2011] VSC 219

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0055 of 2010

THE QUEEN

MARY PYRCZAK

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January, 1 February & 11 April 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Pyrczak
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 219

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Criminal negligence – Plea of guilty – Circumstances of offence – Existence of exceptional circumstance – Nature of the relationship with the victim.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Tinney SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Morrissey SC	Matthew White & Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

Mary Pyrczak, on 9 December 2010 you pleaded guilty before me to the manslaughter of your mother Kateryna Pyrczak, who died at 11.40pm on 10 November 2008 at the Western General Hospital, Footscray.

The cause of your mother’s death was multi-system organ failure, septicaemia and frank gangrene of the right lower leg, and multiple extensive pressure ulcers. Your mother was 72 years of age.

An autopsy done by Dr Malcolm Dodd stated that there was:

· gangrene to the left big toe;

· ulceration of and dried dead tissue on the left leg, and marked cellulitis (inflammation) of the skin of the leg;

· atrophied muscles in the right upper leg;

· gangrenous right lower leg and foot with maggot infestation. The toes were blackened and mummified. The skin on the sole of the foot was thickened and partly separated;

· large areas of open ulceration to the back and buttocks, some of them showing faecal contamination;

· large area of ulceration to the left hip.

Your mother was transported to hospital by ambulance on the morning of 10 November from her premises at 46 Chedby Drive, St Albans following a “000” call that you made from a phone box next to the Ginnifer Railway Station. You had made that call because your mother was refusing to eat.

When the paramedics arrived, they found your mother on the floor of the kitchen covered in blankets and a dressing gown which was stained with maggots, maggot casings and faecal matter. She was naked underneath. There was evidence that your mother had been in this position for a number of days.

Your mother appeared emaciated, stiff, not able to talk, pale, dry, and presented with multiple oozing ulcers on her back, arms and legs. She had a necrotic right foot which was infested heavily with maggots, and there was a large amount of faeces between her legs, on her back and around her body, between three or four litres in total, which had built up over time. Attempts were made by the paramedics to clean her, but a large amount of dried faeces still remained on her despite their attempts.

There was only one tap working in the house. Your mother was then taken to the Western General Hospital, Footscray. Initially the deceased was cleaned by nursing staff…

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 Pyrczak

Details

AGLC: R v Pyrczak [2011] VSC 219
Case: [2011] VSC 219
Decision Date: 15 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pyrczak, the defendant was convicted of a crime involving criminal negligence. The matter was heard in the relevant court where the defendant had entered a plea of guilty. The nature of the dispute centred around the specific circumstances of the offence and whether there were exceptional circumstances that could be considered in mitigation of the sentence. A particular point of contention was the nature of the defendant's relationship with the victim, which was argued to have an impact on the degree of negligence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's relationship with the victim constituted an exceptional circumstance that could be taken into account during sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to assess the overall circumstances of the offence to understand the level of negligence involved. The legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions pertaining to criminal negligence and the consideration of exceptional circumstances in sentencing.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The court noted that the relationship, while not absolving the defendant of criminal responsibility, did provide some context that could be considered in mitigation. The court also reviewed the factual circumstances of the offence, assessing the degree of negligence displayed by the defendant. Ultimately, the court determined that the exceptional circumstance of the relationship, while relevant, did not outweigh the seriousness of the negligence demonstrated. The court concluded that the defendant's actions constituted a significant level of criminal negligence, and thus, the sentence needed to reflect the gravity of the offence.

Orders