R v Sleeth
[2001] VSC 133
•26 March 2001
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1519 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| JOSHUA SEAN SLEETH |
---
JUDGE: | VINCENT, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 MARCH 2001 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2001] VSC 133 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Recklessly causing injury – Guilty plea – Single blow – Ingestion of alcohol – Good character – Young offender – Suspended sentence.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. W. Morgan-Payler Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. T. Forrest Q.C. | Galbally Rolfe |
HIS HONOUR:
Joshua Sean Sleeth, having been initially charged with the offence of manslaughter, you have pleaded guilty to an alternative count that, at Shepparton in the State of Victoria, on 5 March 2000, you recklessly caused injury to Brett Anthony Whyte. You have no prior criminal history.
In explanation of this charge, the prosecutor, Mr Morgan-Payler, of Her Majesty's Counsel, has indicated that the view was adopted by the prosecution that they could not reasonably invite a jury to find that the objective test of dangerousness necessary to found a conviction for manslaughter through the performance of an unlawful and dangerous act had been satisfied. In other words, it was accepted that the throwing of a single punch, in the circumstances, would not suffice. I will return to this aspect a little later.
It is important to state at the outset that, although as a consequence of your actions a human life has been lost, you do not appear before this court on a charge of manslaughter, and you cannot be sentenced as if you were. I am deeply conscious in making this statement of what it means to the family and friends of Mr Whyte, who have lost forever someone that they loved, and for no sensible reason at all. It is no consolation to them, I know, to state that, whilst I understand their feelings, I must act according to the principles which apply to the sentencing of a person in your situation.
The background to, and circumstances surrounding, the commission of the crime for which I must now impose sentence upon you have been outlined by Mr Morgan-Payler in the course of the plea and I need only set them out in a relatively brief fashion.
On the evening of Saturday, 4 March 2000, you, then aged 17 years, attended a friend's 18th birthday party. Following that function, and in company with a number of other young persons, you travelled into Shepparton, where you visited several hotels. There is no doubt that you consumed a significant quantity of alcohol during the course of the night. Following the closure of the last hotel at approximately 5 a.m., you went with your older brother and sister and some friends to a nearby Kentucky Fried Chicken store. That establishment is open 24 hours on weekends, and customers are served at a drive-through window. Orders can take a while to be delivered, and so a number of people are often waiting in the vicinity.
This was the situation when, at approximately 5.20 a.m., Brett Whyte, his girlfriend, Joanne Cochran, Travis Brand, and his girlfriend, Jackie Knight, arrived at the store in a taxi. They had earlier been to a wedding, as well as various hotels in Shepparton, and they too had consumed an amount of alcohol. Upon their arrival, Mr Brand joined the queue awaiting service. There were apparently 15 to 20 people in the area. Ms Knight joined him but, after some time, they both returned to the taxi. As Mr Brand was about to get into the vehicle, a disparaging comment was made by one of those standing by. Mr Brand believing that the comment had been directed at him, turned and walked hurriedly towards your brother, Kieran Sleeth, and another young man, Mark Ferrari, who he regarded as responsible. A confrontation then developed in which your sister, Bronwyn, also became involved. Upon forming the view that your sister and brother could be in trouble, you left the queue and joined them. At about the same time, and for a similar reason, Mr Whyte left the taxi and approached the group to support Mr Brand. Fearing that he might cause some harm to your brother and sister, you moved forward and, without warning or attempting to ascertain his intentions, punched him to the lower jaw, causing him to fall backward to the ground. He was rendered immediately unconscious.
Your victim never regained consciousness. He died at the Alfred Hospital on 6 March from a subarachnoid haemorrhage caused by a ruptured vertebral artery. An application of direct trauma can bring about such a death.
You made an initial statement to the police in which you denied having any involvement with the deceased, although you admitted being in the vicinity. You were again interviewed on 8 March and you admitted striking the blow which caused Mr Whyte to fall to the ground. Your explanation for acting as you did was that you were concerned to protect yourself and your older brother and sister.
I am satisfied that you were not involved in the initial altercation that took place, and that, apart from the single blow that struck Mr Whyte, you were not involved in any further assault upon him or upon Travis Brand.
It appears that the situation in which you found yourself on this evening was very volatile. You had consumed a large amount of alcohol and you were in the company of a large number of similarly affected young people, when you came into confrontation with two unknown males. Acting out of loyalty to members of your own family, you stepped in to support them. Your actions were spontaneous, and clearly you gave little, if any, thought to their possible consequences. There is no suggestion in the material that you intended or even contemplated that the deceased would sustain significant injury.
The type of behaviour in which you engaged is, I understand, sadly too common in the Shepparton area. It appears that on weekends a number of young people with little else to do tend to congregate at the local hotels that stay open until the early hours of the morning. Following their closure, many of the young people will make their way to the Kentucky Fried Chicken store, the only establishment still open at that hour. Probably, not surprisingly, trouble breaks out on occasions amongst those who gather, some of whom, it would be reasonable to assume, would be affected by alcohol. As can be illustrated by your case, the end result in such a situation can be tragic.
I have read the victim impact statements that have been made by the deceased's sisters and his partner, and their sense of loss and anguish emerges powerfully from them. You have, through the commission of an act of violence, brought about the death of a young man whose family and friends, as so often is the case, are left with a deep sense of loss and anguish. With respect to those victim impact statements, I repeat the remarks that I have made on a number of earlier occasions. The introduction of victim impact statements was not intended to effect any change in the sentencing principles which govern the exercise of discretion by a sentencing judge. What they do is introduce in a more specific way factors to which a court would ordinarily have regard in a broader context. They constitute a reminder, and certainly do so in this case, of what might be described as the human aspect of crime, and draw to the attention of the judge, who would of necessity have to consider the possible and probable consequences of criminal behaviour, not only its significance to society in general, but the actual effect of a specific crime upon those who have been intimately affected by it. The statements provide an opportunity for those whose lives are often tragically altered by criminal behaviour to draw to the court's attention the damage and the senseless anguish which has been created.
Consistent with the application of other relevant sentencing principles, the courts must, through the sentences that they impose, endeavour to deter those who may be minded to engage in aggressive conduct of the kind in which you engaged. Further, they must make clear their denunciation of such conduct, indicating to those who may be inclined to act in this way that it will not be tolerated and that they must anticipate that the law will take a firm stand.
Nevertheless, each case and each offender must be considered in the light cast by all of the circumstances and considerations applicable to the specific offence and offender concerned. Whilst the principle of general deterrence has application, I have no reason to anticipate that you will again appear before a criminal court, and do not regard the protection of the public or specific deterrence as important considerations in your case.
You are a young man now aged 18 years and hitherto have conducted yourself as a person of good character. You are the youngest of six children, and have lived all your life in the Shepparton area. You reside with your parents and two of your siblings on the family's property at St Germaines. You had, I understand, a happy and uneventful childhood, attending the local primary and secondary schools. You left secondary school part way through Year 10 to take up an apprenticeship as a butcher, and you have been employed in that capacity for three years. You are presently managing the meat department of the supermarket at which you are employed. You hope to stay within the company operating the supermarket, and they have expressed a desire for you to remain with them.
I have been informed, and accept, that you are extremely remorseful for what you have done. I have taken your plea of guilty into account in your favour. I am mindful that the enormity of the consequences of your conduct, not only to the deceased but to his family and to your own family and to many other people who are associated with both the deceased and yourself, occupies your mind a great deal.
With respect to your prospects of rehabilitation, the situation appears to be quite favourable. You have almost completed your apprenticeship and, as I have indicated, your present employer is keen for you to stay with the company. You have a strong family and social network who are prepared to support and assist you.
I have had regard to the principles which have been set down by the courts in a large number of authorities with respect to the sentencing of youthful offenders and the importance of rehabilitation as a sentencing consideration in such cases. I consider that the element of rehabilitation should be accorded a high degree of significance in your case.
I have had regard to the sentences handed down by the courts for recklessly causing injury over recent years, bearing in mind that they can provide only limited assistance in individual cases.
In the circumstances, I have decided that the appropriate sentence in your case is imprisonment for a period of 18 months. I also consider that there is force in the suggestion advanced by the prosecutor that consideration must be given to the possible suspension of that sentence. After giving thought to that question, I have decided that it would be appropriate to adopt that course. In the circumstances, I direct that the service of the sentence be suspended for a period of two years.
I understand that there is no period of pre-sentence detention to be taken into account in this matter and, accordingly, no declaration is required.
In one sense, Mr Sleeth, you are extremely fortunate that you did not appear before a court charged with manslaughter and you are now going from here with a sentence, the service of which has been suspended. I trust that that will be in the interests of the community and yourself.
---
0
0
0