Legal Research
Cases
R v Shumski

R v Shumski

Case [2025] VSC 148 28 March 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0216

Between:
THE KING
- and -
SPENCER SHUMSKI	Accused

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 February 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Shumski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 148

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — Sentencing facts after jury verdicts — MC ejected from hotel for inappropriate and aggressive behaviour — Accused left hotel soon afterwards — On street, MC threatened accused — Accused approached MC, produced knife — MC kicked out at accused, who swung knife at him, nicking thigh — MC’s friend CA came running at accused, tried to assault him — As accused retreated, swung knife, stabbed CA in chest — CA stumbled, gathered himself, then kept running at accused, tried to assault again — Accused kept retreating, but side-stepped CA slightly, swung knife, stabbed in chest again — CA collapsed, died within minutes — Of two wounds, one fatal, other not — Despite CCTV of incident, unable to tell which strike caused fatal wound — Later in day, accused attended police station with father — Charged with murder — In custody ever since — Jury acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter — Spontaneous acts in face of violence — Verdict consistent with finding that accused believed necessary to act as did in self-defence but not reasonable response in circumstances as he perceived them — Belief in need for self-defence reduces moral culpability — Pretrial offer to plead guilty to manslaughter rejected by Crown — Accused aged 20 then, 22 now — Insight into profound loss caused — Burden of prison increased because faced murder charge until verdict — History of illicit drug use — Modest criminal history — Otherwise of good character — Very supportive family — Strong prospects of rehabilitation — Sentence of six years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 322K & 322L.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Glynn	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the accused	Mr D Cronin with Mr S Ranjit	Emma Turnbull & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

In the early hours of Sunday 7 May 2023, Michael Callow, aged 45, was ejected from a hotel in Sale for inappropriate and aggressive behaviour. Shortly afterwards, in the street just around the corner, Mr Callow, who was of imposing size and disposition, threatened Spencer Shumski, aged 20, who had also been at the hotel. As Mr Shumski unwisely moved closer to Mr Callow, he produced a knife to frighten him. Mr Callow kicked out at Mr Shumski, who swung the knife in a round-arm fashion, nicking his thigh. Each man then stepped back from the other and adopted a fighting stance.

As this was occurring, Mr Callow’s friend Clint Allen, aged 38, had been running towards Mr Shumski. As soon as he noticed Mr Allen, who was still running and had his…

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 Shumski

Details

AGLC: R v Shumski [2025] VSC 148
Case: [2025] VSC 148
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shumski, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by a jury, following a complex sequence of events that involved multiple participants. The dispute arose from a confrontation on a street, where the defendant, after being ejected from a hotel for inappropriate and aggressive behaviour, produced a knife in response to threats made by another individual, which resulted in the death of a third person. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the defendant's actions were a spontaneous response to violence and whether his belief in the necessity of self-defence, despite the disproportionate response, warranted a reduction in moral culpability. Additionally, the court had to consider various sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age at the time of the offence, his history of drug use and criminal conduct, his character, the support from his family, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to account for the fact that the defendant had been in custody since the incident and had been charged with murder until acquitted by the jury.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant's actions, although not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them, were indeed a spontaneous act in the face of violence. The court acknowledged the defendant's belief in the need for self-defence, which reduced his moral culpability. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's age, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation, the court determined that a sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was appropriate. The court's decision was influenced by the significant personal impact on the defendant and the need for a sentence that balanced the principles of justice and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to six years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a non-parole period of three years. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the severity of the offence and the mitigating factors present in this case.

Orders