Legal Research
Cases
R v Ramage

R v Ramage

Case [2004] VSC 508 9 December 2004

Criminal Liability

Manslaughter

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1492 of 2003

THE QUEEN

JAMES STEWART RAMAGE

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4-6, 8, 11-14, 18-22, 25-28 OCTOBER, 1 DECEMBER 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 DECEMBER 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v RAMAGE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 508

---

Sentence – Manslaughter.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Dunn QC	Clarebrough Pica

HIS HONOUR:

James Stewart Ramage you have been convicted by a jury of the manslaughter of your wife Julie Ramage at Balwyn on 21 July 2003.

You and the deceased married in 1980 when she was only 19 and you were only 20 years of age. Following some initial difficulties in the marriage including a separation of some months, you and your wife had two children – Matthew born in 1985 and Samantha born in 1987. You studied part time and worked your way through a series of accounting jobs to become the joint proprietor of a successful business involved in the re-enamelling of bathtubs. Your wife also after some years studied part time and obtained employment for four days a week as a bookkeeper with a clothing company.

It is apparent that in the two years prior to her death your wife was increasingly unhappy in the marriage. In particular she found your behaviour controlling and oppressive, and it seems likely that her dissatisfaction also related back in part to some incidents of violence earlier in the marriage.

In any event, in May 2003 she left the family home while you were on a business trip to Japan and Korea. On your return you found that she and your daughter had moved into a flat in Toorak and that your son Matthew, who was then undertaking his final school year, was still living at the family home.

I accept that the breakdown of your marriage in this way was from your point of view sudden, unexpected and emotionally destabilising in a way which you did not easily accept.

It is clear from the evidence of your family and friends that your reaction was to try desperately to re-establish the marriage. You immediately sought to make and maintain contact with your wife and met with her at least weekly for meals. You sought advice as to what you should do from trusted family friends and from friends of your wife in particular. You saw a series of counsellors for advice and set up joint appointments for both your wife and yourself to try and provide a framework for reconciliation.

While undertaking these steps it is also clear that you suffered continuing and substantial anxiety. You ruminated obsessively about getting your wife back and had long and difficult discussions with your children (particularly your son) and other friends as to what was happening and as to what…

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 Ramage

Details

AGLC: R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508
Case: [2004] VSC 508
Decision Date: 9 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ramage, the defendant stood accused of manslaughter before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from a tragic incident in which the defendant allegedly caused the death of a pedestrian while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's background.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the degree of culpability of the defendant, the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the circumstances warranted a custodial sentence, and if so, the length and nature of the sentence.

The court acknowledged the severity of the offence, noting that the defendant had been under the influence of substances at the time of the incident, which contributed to the tragic outcome. In determining the sentence, the court gave weight to the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, their expressions of remorse, and the impact of the incident on the victim's family. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation. The court found that a term of imprisonment, coupled with conditions aimed at addressing the defendant's substance abuse issues, was the most appropriate course of action.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term, with conditions attached to the sentence aimed at assisting the defendant in addressing their substance abuse issues and preventing future offending. The court also ordered the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs and to abide by other specified conditions during their sentence and upon release.

Orders