R v Seckold - [2014] VSC 441

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 58 of 2013
No. 61 of 2013
No. 63 of 2013

THE QUEEN

BROK SECKOLD

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 September 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Seckold
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 441

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking drugs in a large commercial quantity – Plea of guilty – Production of ephedrine and methyl amphetamine over an 8 month period – Instigator and controller of the laboratory – Operation continued despite police attention – Clandestine laboratory at several locations.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Firearms – Plea of guilty - Firearms located at two different locations.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Kidnapping – Plea of not guilty – Victim taken from his premises – Victim transported to rural Victoria – Victim shot in the head – Victim’s body dismembered – Offences committed to protect drug operation – Sentence imposed after a trial – During trial Crown witness accused of being the killer – Carefully planned murder.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. Brown Ms S. Keating	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Higham	C. Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Brok Seckold you are to be sentenced today in relation to two separate indictments and a summary offence. Though they are separate, the subject matter of the charges on the indictments is directly connected.

First, on 10 October 2013 after a trial lasting for some four weeks, you were found guilty by a jury in this Court of the charges of kidnapping and murder of Yengo Faugere. Those offences were alleged to have been committed by you on 20 October 2011.

Second, on 22 April 2013 you pleaded guilty to all charges on a separate indictment (‘the drug and firearms indictment’) and which included the following charges:

Charge 1 Between 16 May 2011 and 7 February 2012, trafficking two or more drugs of dependence not less than a large commercial quantity.

Charge 2 On 8 July 2011, possessing an unregistered Category D longarm.

Charge 3 On 8 July 2011, possessing an unregistered Category A longarm.

Charge 4 On 7 February 2012, possessing an unregistered general category handgun.

Charge 5 On 7 February 2012, possessing an unregistered Category B longarm.

Charge 6 On 7 February 2012, possessing an unregistered Category A longarm.

Charge 7 On 7 February 2012, possessing an unregistered Category A longarm.

In addition, on 15 August 2014, you pleaded guilty to a summary charge that on 7 February 2012 you possessed a prohibited weapon without an exemption under s 8B or an approval under s 8C of the Control of Weapons Act 1990. The weapon was a stun gun.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for all of these offences. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[1] The maximum penalty for kidnapping is 25 years’…

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 Seckold

Details

AGLC: R v Seckold [2014] VSC 441
Case: [2014] VSC 441
Decision Date: 12 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Seckold, the defendant was convicted of various serious offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, and murder. The defendant pleaded guilty to producing ephedrine and methyl amphetamine in large quantities, being the instigator and controller of a clandestine laboratory, and possessing firearms. However, he pleaded not guilty to the charge of murdering a victim whose body was later found dismembered. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant's extensive drug trafficking operation, the relevance of the firearms found at two separate locations, and the severity of the murder charge given the circumstances. The court had to weigh the totality of the defendant's criminal conduct, the gravity of the offences, and the impact of the crimes on the community.

The court, in delivering the sentence, considered the extensive nature of the drug trafficking, the sophistication of the clandestine laboratory, and the defendant's role as the controller and instigator. It also took into account the firearms offences and the murder charge, noting the defendant's lack of remorse and the premeditated nature of the murder. The court concluded that the defendant's actions warranted a significant custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The final orders included a lengthy sentence for the drug trafficking offences, a concurrent sentence for the firearms offences, and a consecutive sentence for the murder charge. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation in light of the defendant's extensive criminal conduct.

Orders