R v Sonnet - [2012] VSC 106

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1443 of 2005

THE QUEEN

SEAN JASON SONNET

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	1 December 2011, 23 January 2012, 9 March 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 March 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sonnet
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 106

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to murder – No evidence of target of conspiracy – No evidence of proposed payment for planned murder – Plea of guilty after successful appeal of conviction – Late plea – Calculation to include time already served in custody – Onerous conditions in custody – Time on bail resulting in more onerous experience of imprisonment – Opportunity for rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Meredith	Ms Emma Turnbull

HIS HONOUR:

Sean Jason Sonnet, on 7 November 2011 you pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to murder which is in the following terms:

The Director of Public Prosecutions charges that Sean Jason Sonnet at Melbourne in Victoria between the 29^th day of May and the 9^th day of June 2004 agreed together with Michael Thorneycroft, Carl Anthony Williams and Gregg Hilderbrandt to pursue a course of conduct which would involve the commission of an offence namely the murder of a person unknown.

The maximum penalty for conspiracy to murder is life imprisonment.

On 1 December 2011, I heard submissions from the prosecutor and from your counsel, Mr Meredith, in relation to the sentence which should be imposed on you and it is now my responsibility to sentence you for the offence of conspiracy to murder.

After 1 December 2011, you announced that you wished to make an application to be permitted to withdraw your plea of guilty. On 24 January 2012 you confirmed that you wished to seek legal advice about pursuing that course and on 3 March 2012 you appeared to have some assistance in that regard from Mr Peter Faris QC. However, on 9 March 2012 you indicated that you no longer wished to pursue that possibility. I refer to that series of events because I wish to make it clear that none of what occurred between 24 January 2012 and today has had any adverse effect on the sentence I will shortly impose on you.

The offence to which you have pleaded guilty involves you and your relationship with Carl Williams, Michael Thorneycroft and Gregg Hilderbrandt during the period between 30 May 2004 and 9 June 2004, which is the day on which you were arrested in North Road, East Brighton near the main entrance to the Brighton Cemetery with a view to carrying out this offence. Prior to 9 June 2004 you had, with others, conducted surveillance in the area around the Brighton Cemetery with a view to carrying out this offence.

Most of the evidence on which the Crown had proposed…

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 Sonnet

Details

AGLC: R v Sonnet [2012] VSC 106
Case: [2012] VSC 106
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sonnet, the appellant, Sonnet, faced a criminal charge of conspiracy to murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a state in Australia. The dispute centred on the sentence that should be imposed on Sonnet, given that he pleaded guilty to the charge after successfully appealing his original conviction. The appeal court had found that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for conspiracy to murder, but Sonnet subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sonnet, taking into account various factors, including the time he had already served in custody, the conditions of his custody, and the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Sonnet, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder after a successful appeal of his original conviction. The court needed to consider the circumstances of the case, including the fact that there was no evidence of the target of the conspiracy or the proposed payment for the planned murder. The court also had to weigh the impact of Sonnet's time already served in custody, the conditions of his custody, and the time he spent on bail, which resulted in a more onerous experience of imprisonment. Additionally, the court had to consider the opportunity for rehabilitation that Sonnet had while in custody.

The court began by noting that Sonnet had already served a significant period in custody before his successful appeal. It was determined that the time he had already served should be included in the calculation of his sentence. The court also considered the onerous conditions of Sonnet's custody, which had a negative impact on his experience of imprisonment. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that Sonnet's time on bail, which resulted in a more onerous experience of imprisonment, should also be taken into account. Finally, the court recognised the importance of the opportunity for rehabilitation that Sonnet had while in custody. In light of these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Sonnet was one that reflected the time already served, the conditions of his custody, and the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Sonnet's sentence should include the time he had already served in custody, as well as the time he spent on bail. The court also imposed conditions on Sonnet's sentence that took into account the onerous conditions of his custody and the opportunity for rehabilitation. These conditions aimed to ensure that Sonnet's sentence was fair and just, while also promoting his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders