R v Robb - [2015] VSC 596

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0123

THE QUEEN

KRISTY ROBB

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 October 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robb
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 596

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Jury returned verdict of guilty to charge – Sentencing considerations – Sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years - Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC with Ms S. Coombes	Ms V. Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Mylonas	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

Kristy Robb, you have been found guilty by a jury of the offence of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act in that on 30 January 2014, you killed Alan Dennis Matthews. The maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter is 20 years.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 5.

On the evening of Wednesday 29 January 2014, you were driven by Mr Gino Rachele, with whom you were in an intimate relationship, to the home of Mr Matthews at 25 Henry Street, Noble Park. For a short period, it seems only a matter of days, earlier in January 2014, you, with your then three children, had rented a bungalow at the rear of these premises from Mr Matthews.

The rented premises were unsuitable, and you the moved to 1 Albert Road, Hallam around 22 January, where your mother, Ms Catherine Helen Meek, was living with a friend of hers, Ms Cherree Elise Smith-Kurzbock.

There was a rental dispute between Mr Matthews and you. He claimed you owed him rent and, as a consequence of this, he retained some of your property.

It is apparent the relationship between Mr Matthews and you was not good. Rachele gave evidence of witnessing at least one conversation between Mr Matthews and you prior to 29 January when Mr Matthews’ was abusive towards you.[2]
[2]Rachele, Supreme Court Transcript (‘Transcript’) at 212.1 - 212.10.

On the evening of 28 January, Rachele arrived at the Albert Road address at approximately 11.00pm. You informed forensic psychiatrist, Ms Pamela Matthews, who examined you on 28 September 2015, that with Rachele, you shared a bottle of vodka and two to three cannabis joints.

Your children were due to start school on 29 January 2014. Items of school uniform remained at Mr Matthews’ premises. Rachele and you decided to drive to Mr Matthews’ address to obtain items of school uniform and, it appears, other possessions belonging to you that were being held there.[3] It was Rachele that offered to drive you to Noble Park.[4]
[3]Rachele, Transcript at 192.15 and213.20 - 213.30.
[4]Rachele, Transcript at 214.2.

It was around 2.45am that Rachele and you arrived at 25 Henry Street, Noble Park.

It is the evidence of Rachele, which I accept, that the attendance at Mr…

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 Robb

Details

AGLC: R v Robb [2015] VSC 596
Case: [2015] VSC 596
Decision Date: 28 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robb involved the accused, Robb, who was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary dispute revolved around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Robb following his conviction for manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court included determining the severity of the offence and the appropriate punishment considering the circumstances of the crime and the principles of sentencing. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the necessity for rehabilitation, following the precedent set by Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342. The court also considered various mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at a just sentence.

After careful consideration of the evidence and the legal principles, the court sentenced Robb to imprisonment for a period of four years. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the gravity of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court took into account both the mitigating factors presented by the defence and the aggravating circumstances of the case. This outcome was in line with the principles of sentencing established in the relevant case law.

The final orders of the court were that Robb be remanded into custody and serve a sentence of imprisonment for four years, with consideration for parole eligibility after serving two-thirds of the sentence, subject to satisfactory conduct.

Orders