R v Reid - [2009] VSC 326

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1684 of 2008

THE QUEEN

DAVID JOHN REID

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1-5, 9-12, and 15-17 June and 15 July 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE	10 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Reid
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 326

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by criminal negligence and recklessly causing injury – Victim was domestic partner of offender - Victim was hit on the head with a coffee cup by the offender – Offender omitted to obtain assistance and abandoned victim, who later died – Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

David John Reid, on 17 June 2009 a jury found you guilty of one count of manslaughter and one count of recklessly causing injury, in relation to the death of your de facto wife, Nola Ritter, on 21 May 2006.

On 15 July 2009 I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for recklessly causing injury is five years’ imprisonment.

The circumstances of your offending can be summarised as follows.[1]
[1]I am bound to sentence the accused on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to matters adverse to the accused, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in his favour which are established on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].

You and Ms Ritter spent much of 20 May 2006 drinking cask wine together from ceramic coffee mugs. At some stage that evening, you argued over who would drink the last cup of wine. You swung your mug at Ms Ritter, causing a cut on the back of her head measuring 40 by 12 millimetres and penetrating the full thickness of the skin through to the muscle. The evidence of the forensic pathologist, Dr Woodford, which I accept, was that significant force would have been necessary to cause this wound. The force of the blow caused the cup handle to break. By finding you guilty of recklessly causing injury, the jury must have been satisfied that you knew your act would probably injure the deceased.

At some point that night you also gave Ms Ritter what you referred to in your records of interview as a ‘backhander’, cutting her lip.

You both went to bed shortly after the coffee mug incident. You woke at about 7 am to find the pillows and sheets soaked with blood. Ms Ritter moved out of…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2009] VSC 326
Case: [2009] VSC 326
Decision Date: 10 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid was heard in a court in which the defendant, Reid, was charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence and recklessly causing injury to his domestic partner. The victim was struck on the head with a coffee cup by Reid and subsequently left alone, without any attempt to obtain assistance. The victim later died as a result of the injuries sustained. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Reid, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the degree of Reid's criminal negligence and recklessness, as well as the appropriate sentence and non-parole period for the offences committed. The court had to consider the impact of Reid's actions on the victim and the severity of the injuries caused. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

The court found that Reid's actions were indeed negligent and reckless, resulting in the death of the victim. The court took into account the fact that the victim was Reid's domestic partner and the offender had abandoned the victim without seeking assistance. The court determined that a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years. The court emphasised the need for punishment and deterrence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The court ordered that Reid be imprisoned for a total effective term of five years, with a non-parole period of three years. The court's decision highlights the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and ensuring that the appropriate sentence is imposed to balance the needs of justice, punishment, and rehabilitation.

Orders