R v Scarborough - [2000] VSC 255

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1424 of 2000

THE QUEEN

TOM SCARBOROUGH

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15, 16, 19 MAY 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 JUNE 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. SCARBOROUGH
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 255

---

CATCHWORDS: Crimes Compensation – Pain and suffering – Attempted murder – Compensation for victims – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic.) s.86 – Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic.) s.31 – Properly forfeited in relation to an offence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	R.A. Elston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	D.A. Dann	Mulcahy Mendelson & Round
For the Applicant Christopher Malcolm Dunn	I.R.L. Freckleton	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
For the Applicants Jason Leigh Streigher & Others	J.F. Carmody	Holding Redlich

HIS HONOUR:

These are my reasons for making certain orders for compensation on nine applications brought under s. 86 of the Sentencing Act (“the Act”) by victims of crimes committed by Tom Scarborough. It is necessary to spell out in some detail the events that were the subject of the thirteen counts to which Tom Scarborough has pleaded guilty. What follows is a summary of parts of the findings made by me when sentencing him today.

Tom Scarborough met Phong Nguyen in about the middle of 1996, and subsequently the two of them met often to engage in heroin trafficking. Tom Scarborough gave Phong Nguyen credit. In February 1999, Phong Nguyen owed about $1600.

Tom Scarborough’s trafficking in illegal drugs was, in and around 1998, his only source of income. He was able to make it highly profitable, earning amounts measured in terms of thousands of dollars a week. He spent some of the profits in high living and on female companions. He spent some on a high performance car, a Toyota Soarer PKV 882.

On Wednesday 17 February 1999, when Tom Scarborough was driving the Toyota Soarer in Brighton, he resented the way in which a van driver was driving, and, when both vehicles were stopped at red lights, he took out an extendable baton and smashed the rear window of the van. Two days later, when he was disturbed in South Yarra while removing the number plates from a car, he was asked by another man what he was doing. He abused the man, threatened to fight the man, held a screwdriver pointed at the man and walked off with the numberplates. Two days later, he drove to Yarraville, looking for Phong Nguyen. He located Phong Nguyen sitting in a car with 2 friends, and from close range, he fired several shots at Phong Nguyen with a handgun, causing injuries to the latter’s chest, abdomen, arm and leg. Two of the shots hit Ha Vu, who was sitting in the front passenger’s seat, causing Ha Vu injuries to the leg and foot. The next day, when he was driving his car in Coburg, he again resented the way another driver was driving. When both cars…

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 Scarborough

Details

AGLC: R v Scarborough [2000] VSC 255
Case: [2000] VSC 255
Decision Date: 26 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Scarborough, the respondent, a Victorian court considered an application for compensation under the Sentencing Act 1991, in relation to the respondent's claim for pain and suffering due to an attempted murder charge. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's claims for compensation were valid and if the amount sought was appropriate, in light of the relevant statutory provisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's claims for compensation were within the scope of the Sentencing Act and whether the amount sought was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court also had to consider whether the Confiscation Act 1997 applied to the matter and if the respondent's claims were properly forfeited in relation to the offence.

The court found that the respondent's claims for compensation were indeed within the scope of the Sentencing Act, as the statutory provisions provided for compensation to victims of crime. The court also held that the amount sought by the respondent was appropriate, taking into account the severity of the attempted murder and the impact on the victim. Furthermore, the court determined that the Confiscation Act did not apply to the matter, as the respondent's claims for compensation were not forfeited in relation to the offence. Consequently, the court granted the respondent's application for compensation, as sought.

The court ordered that the respondent be awarded the full amount of compensation sought, in accordance with the provisions of the Sentencing Act. The court further directed that any costs associated with the application be paid by the state.

Orders