R v Saunders

Case [2007] VSC 298


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1563 of 2006

THE QUEEN
v
ROBERT JOHN SAUNDERS

---

JUDGE:

Curtain J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

15 August 2007

DATE OF SENTENCE:

16 August 2007

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Saunders

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2007] VSC 298

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Assist Offender – Guilty Plea.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr K Gilligan Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mr LWG Hartnett Galbally & O’Bryan

HER HONOUR:

  1. Robert John Saunders, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting offender and have admitted prior convictions.

  1. The Crown allege that Benjamin Smith murdered Brian Raymond Young on the evening of 17 September 2005.  On the following day Smith and his girlfriend, Lisa Richardson, attended your flat in Flemington and there spoke to your then de facto wife asking if they could stay a couple of nights and borrowing a suitcase.  You returned home at a later point and Smith and Richardson re-attended at the flat and Richardson asked you if you would help she and Smith to "move some stuff" out of their flat.  You agreed and you went with them to their flat in South Yarra, with you driving a car that Smith had borrowed from his mother.

  1. En route Richardson told you, referring to Smith, that Ben had killed someone and they needed a hand to get rid of the body.  You were shocked by that revelation and Smith confirmed it by saying:

“I've killed someone.  We need a hand to get rid of the body.  If you don't help me get rid of it, you and your missus are next.”

Smith was holding a knife at your throat at the time he said this and thus you agreed to assist him.

  1. At the flat you were shown your suitcase.  You declined an invitation to look inside and you refused to help Smith and Richardson carry it to the car, which they both did, placing it in the boot.  The three of you then drove back to your flat at Flemington and you permitted Smith and Richardson to stay the night.

  1. The next day all three of you travelled to the You Yangs Regional Park to dispose of the body of Mr Young.  The three of you removed the suitcase from the boot of the car and placed it in a shallow grave that had been dug by Richardson and Smith.  The grave was covered with soil, sticks and branches, no doubt in an attempt to camouflage it and the three of you then returned to Melbourne.

  1. Richardson gave you a mobile phone and a charger for permitting she and Smith to stay the night.  That phone belonged to the deceased.  You sold it to a vendor at the Victoria Market and subsequently the police were able to trace it back to you. 

  1. When you were spoken to by the police on 9 November, you…

Continue reading R v Saunders

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Saunders [2007] VSC 298
Case
[2007] VSC 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saunders arose from an incident where the defendant was found to have assisted an offender. The dispute reached the court where the defendant, Saunders, was required to be sentenced following a guilty plea. The legal issues that the court was required to address included the appropriate sentence for the defendant given his role as an accessory and his decision to enter a guilty plea. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing for those who assist offenders, particularly in light of the plea of guilt.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles applicable to the defendant's role as an accessory. It was noted that Saunders had facilitated the commission of a crime, albeit not as the principal offender. The court considered the degree of involvement, the extent to which Saunders' actions contributed to the offence, and the fact that he had chosen to plead guilty. The court balanced these factors against the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, ultimately determining that a sentence should reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's cooperation in the judicial process.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the mitigating factor of Saunders' guilty plea, which typically warrants a reduction in sentence. However, the court also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence appropriately reflects the defendant's culpability and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court concluded that while the plea of guilt was a significant factor, it did not absolve the defendant of the responsibility for his actions as an accessory. The court imposed a sentence that was sufficient to address these considerations, ensuring that it was proportionate and just.

The court ordered that Saunders be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the duration and conditions of the sentence to be outlined in the judgment. The sentence was designed to reflect the balance between the need for punishment and the recognition of Saunders' plea of guilt. The court's decision provides a clear guideline for future cases involving similar circumstances, emphasising the importance of a fair and balanced approach to sentencing for those who assist offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.