R v Stoneham - [2013] VSC 661

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

No. 0078 of 2013

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
v
JAMES STONEHAM	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stoneham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 661

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder of 20-year-old woman by 21-year-old former boyfriend – Premeditation – Accused searched internet on murder and murder sentences before killing – Accused bought a knife for the purpose of killing – Accused stabbed deceased once to neck with knife – Plea of guilty – Remorse – No prior convictions – No history of violence – Mental illness at time of offence – Hardship of imprisonment – Youth – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Weight to general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment moderated on account of mental illness – Community protection – Specific deterrence – Rehabilitation – Parsimony – Current sentencing practices – Submissions on range – Sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14½ years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC with Mr T Wraight	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 22 August 2013, almost a year after he killed Adriana Donato, James Stoneham pleaded guilty in this Court to Ms Donato’s murder. On 11 November 2013, he confirmed that plea of guilty. The same day, the matter was opened and a plea in mitigation of penalty was heard.

Shortly, I will impose sentence. My reasons for that sentence are as follows.

Circumstances giving rise to the offence

Materials

The circumstances of the offending were outlined in a written Summary of Prosecution Opening (Exhibit 1). Mr Rochford SC, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opened the matter by reading from that document. He added to the opening in the course of the hearing by advising me of other matters and referring to some photographs (Exhibits 2 and 5).

Mr Morrissey SC, who with Mr Wraight appeared for Mr Stoneham, tendered two reports of psychiatrist Dr Anthony Cidoni, a report of psychologist Patrick Newton, clinical notes of Orygen Youth Health Inpatient Unit and clinical notes of the Acute Assessment Unit at Melbourne Assessment Prison (Exhibit A) and a bundle of written references (Exhibit B).

I have supplemented Mr Rochford’s summary with information from these sources and other information contained in the depositions and received on the plea.

Summary of circumstances

Adriana Donato was born on 21 October 1991. She was murdered on 23 August 2012, about two months before her 21^st birthday. Ms Donato lived with her parents Graziella and Giuseppe Donato and her brother Nicola at the family home in Avondale Heights.

James Stoneham was born on…

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 Stoneham

Details

AGLC: R v Stoneham [2013] VSC 661
Case: [2013] VSC 661
Decision Date: 29 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Stoneham, the appellant was convicted of the murder of a 20-year-old woman by his 21-year-old former boyfriend. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the accused, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. This included the accused's premeditation, remorse, mental illness at the time of the offence, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with weighing the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment against the mitigating factors present in this case. The accused had engaged in extensive internet research about murder and potential sentences, purchased a knife with the intent to kill, and ultimately stabbed the victim once in the neck. Despite these aggravating factors, the court also considered the accused's lack of a prior criminal record, absence of a history of violence, and his mental health condition at the time of the offence. The court further deliberated on the hardship that imprisonment would impose on the accused, his youth, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

Upon balancing these considerations, the court sentenced the accused to 19 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 14½ years. The court acknowledged that had the accused not pleaded guilty, the sentence would have been 25 years with a non-parole period of 20 years. This decision was made in accordance with the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), sections 5 and 6AAA. The court's ruling reflected a comprehensive analysis of the principles of sentencing and the unique circumstances of this case.

Orders