R v Quail - [2013] VSC 190

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0052 of 2012

THE QUEEN

JOHN QUAIL

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14-16, 19-23, 26 November 2011, 26 March 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Quail
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 190

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Attempted Murder – Circumstances of offending – Prospects of rehabilitation not forthcoming – Previous good character – No basis to find any signs of remorse – 12 ½ years with a non-parole period of 10 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

John Quail, after a trial lasting nine days, you were convicted by a jury of the attempted murder of Stavros Ridis.

That offence had occurred when you went to Tarmac Drive, Tullamarine on the evening of 7 July 2011. Stavros Ridis worked at Hudson Pacific in Tarmac Drive. You waited for him to leave work. As he was exiting the Hudson Pacific premises, he got out of the car to lock the security gate at the premises. When Mr Ridis got out of his car, you drove your car over to a point near his car so that the front near side corner of your car was close to the front off side corner of Mr Ridis’s car. You were armed with a Ruger 22 semi automatic pistol fitted with a silencer. Mr Ridis came over to the near side of your window of the car which you were driving. As Mr Ridis approached your car, you said words to the effect of, “Now you die, you bastard” and you then fired the gun at him. At some stage you must have gotten out of the car. Mr Ridis was struck by a bullet and you fired a number of other shots at him.

He retreated back behind his car not far away from the gate into Hudson Pacific. It appears that he collapsed or fell to the ground in a sitting position and you came over to him. I am satisfied that you were going to shoot him again. Mr Ridis put up a struggle and the weapon discharged a bullet which probably went to the ground and part of it ricocheted into you lower leg. At some point Mr Ridis heard a click when what he now believes to be the gun was near his head. He had, and he has no recollection of this, bit your finger and you either dropped the weapon or he grabbed hold of it. You finished up on the ground next to Mr Ridis, and he finished up with the gun and struck you about the head with it. He knew that he had something heavy in his hand and thought it might have been a rock. He, at that stage, was seriously injured. He stood up and…

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 Quail

Details

AGLC: R v Quail [2013] VSC 190
Case: [2013] VSC 190
Decision Date: 28 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, sought to appeal a sentence imposed for an attempted murder conviction, arguing the sentence was excessive. The court examined the severity of the crime, the appellant’s criminal history, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The appellant had previously led a life of good character, with no prior criminal record, which was considered during sentencing. Despite this, the court highlighted the gravity of the attempted murder, noting the lack of any remorse exhibited by the appellant and the high likelihood of reoffending. The court's task was to balance the appellant's past good character against the heinous nature of the offence and the risk of reoffending.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the appellant's previously good character and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors against the severity of the attempted murder and the appellant's apparent lack of remorse. Additionally, the court considered the need for deterrence and the protection of society, given the nature of the offence. The appellant's previous good character was acknowledged but deemed insufficient to warrant a significantly reduced sentence in light of the gravity of the offence and the risk of reoffending.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. The appellant's prior good character was noted but not deemed sufficient to override the seriousness of the attempted murder. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence and provided adequate deterrence and protection for society. The appellant's lack of remorse and the high risk of reoffending further supported the imposed sentence. The court concluded that the sentence, including a non-parole period of 10 years, was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders