R v Sharp - [2003] VSC 44

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1411 of 2002

THE QUEEN

PETER ALLAN SHARP

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 FEBRUARY 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 FEBRUARY 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. SHARP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 44

---

Sentence – Murder – Acquaintance bashed to death by offender – Disposal of body in countryside – Brutal attack – No remorse – Prior convictions for violence – Little prospect of rehabilitation – Need for general and specific deterrence and protection of the public – 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Ryan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	Grubissa White

HIS HONOUR:

Peter Allan Sharp, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Stephen Wilkes at Ascot Vale in May 2001. In order to sentence you it is necessary to briefly summarise the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence.

In the month of May 2001 you were residing at Flat 3, 133 Epsom Road, Ascot Vale in emergency housing run by the St Vincent de Paul organisation. Among the visitors who would come to your flat from time to time were an Adam Murphy, a fellow resident who lived upstairs in Flat 9, and persons you became friendly with at Ozanam House, such as John Wilkinson, Robert Coulson, and the deceased. These people would visit to buy marijuana from you and to have a drink.

On Friday 4 May about four or 5 p.m. John Wilkinson brought some stolen motor vehicle parts to your flat. These included shock absorbers. You negotiated to purchase these parts. Mr Wilkinson said that present in your flat at this time were Adam Murphy and the deceased, Steve Wilkes. He observed you and the others drinking UDL cans and smoking bongs, and he described you as being drunk and stoned.

At some point in the afternoon Mr Murphy left your flat and, according to his evidence - which I regard the jury as having largely accepted - you knocked on his door at about 11 p.m. the same evening. The witness described you as agitated. You asked him to come downstairs to your flat, telling him that something had happened. Although he gave no evidence of your state of sobriety at this time, the likelihood is that you were still affected by alcohol and/or marijuana to some extent.

On entering the flat he saw the deceased lying on the lounge-room floor, "spasming" and grasping at the leg of a chair. Blood was coming from his mouth. You told Mr Murphy to sit down and shut up. You refused his suggestion that you ring an ambulance and told him, "This is what happens in the criminal world. I'm going to teach you all about it." At some stage you picked up one of the shock absorbers and said,…

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 Sharp

Details

AGLC: R v Sharp [2003] VSC 44
Case: [2003] VSC 44
Decision Date: 10 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sharp, the defendant was convicted of the murder of an acquaintance who was brutally bashed to death, with the body subsequently being disposed of in a remote area. The dispute in question pertained to the appropriate sentence for the defendant's heinous crime. The High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentence imposed by the lower courts, which was 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the appropriate balance between the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the context of a severe violent crime. The court had to consider the brutality of the attack, the lack of remorse shown by the offender, his prior history of violent convictions, and the negligible likelihood of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the necessity for general and specific deterrence against the potential for the offender to contribute to society if given a lesser sentence.

The court emphasised the extreme brutality of the attack and the offender's callous disposal of the victim's body. It noted the defendant's history of violence and the absence of any mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the need for specific deterrence, to protect the public from the offender, and to send a strong message regarding the gravity of such heinous crimes. The High Court affirmed the sentence, finding no basis to alter the terms set by the lower courts.

No additional orders were made by the High Court. The sentence of 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years remains in effect.

Orders