R v Streeter - [2014] VSC 100

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0115 of 2013

THE QUEEN	Prosecution
v
ROSS JAMES STREETER	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 December 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Streeter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 100

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Plea of guilty – Two motiveless murders – Victims are family members – Lack of memory of the crimes – Subsequent acceptance of responsibility – Plea of guilty to two counts - Remorse – Effect of lack of motive – General deterrence – Moral culpability – Totality.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Rochford SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. O’Connell SC	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Ross James Streeter, on 23 September 2013 you pleaded guilty before me to two counts of murder. First, the murder of your father, Douglas Ivor Streeter, and, second, your uncle, John Walter Streeter. These offences took place on or about 14 March 2013 at a sheep grazing and wool production farm known as “Daisymont” in Natte Yallock which had been in your family for three generations. The bodies of your father and uncle were located by your mother at about 5.30pm on 14 March 2013. Both men had been shot to death with a shotgun. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. I must now sentence you for these two crimes.

On 2 December 2013, I heard a summary of the case against you from senior counsel on behalf of the prosecution and submissions from senior counsel on your behalf and as to the sentence I should impose on you. Subsequent to hearing those submissions, I informed the parties that I was dissatisfied with the claim by you that you had no memory of the commission of the offence and also that I was concerned about the apparent lack of any motive you might have had to commit them. As a result I expressed the desire to engage another psychiatric professional to report pursuant to s 8A of the Sentencing Act 1991. On 20 February 2014 I received a report from Dr Douglas Bell who is a consultant psychiatrist and Assistant Clinical Director (Prison Operations) with Forensicare. On 7 March 2014 I was informed by email that the parties did not wish to make further submissions about that report. I will return to Dr Bell’s report shortly.

No issue has been taken on your behalf with the accuracy of the prosecutor’s opening presented on 2 December 2013. However, I have also had reference to the depositions in an effort to understand what occurred. That was necessary because of your claim, to which I have already referred, that you have little memory of what occurred. This case is very unusual for that reason and, further, because there is no discernible motive for you to have done what you did. Therefore, I must sentence you…

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 Streeter

Details

AGLC: R v Streeter [2014] VSC 100
Case: [2014] VSC 100
Decision Date: 19 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Streeter, the respondent was convicted of two counts of murder. The victims were family members, and the respondent had no memory of the crimes. The respondent later accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty. The court had to consider the lack of motive, the respondent's remorse, and the principles of general deterrence and moral culpability in determining the appropriate sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive or manifestly inadequate, given the respondent's lack of memory of the crimes, his subsequent acceptance of responsibility, and the principles of general deterrence and moral culpability. The court also had to consider the totality principle, which requires that the sentence for multiple offences should not be more than the sum of the sentences that would be appropriate for each offence if they had been committed separately.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the seriousness of the crimes, the lack of motive, and the respondent's remorse. The court found that the lower court had not given sufficient weight to the totality principle, and that the sentence should have reflected the fact that the respondent had committed two separate murders. The court also noted that the lack of motive did not diminish the moral culpability of the respondent, who had accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse. The High Court of Australia quashed the sentence imposed by the lower court and ordered a new sentencing hearing.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence imposed by the lower court be quashed, and that a new sentencing hearing be conducted, taking into account the principles of general deterrence, moral culpability, and the totality principle. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the true seriousness of the crimes committed, and that the principles of sentencing are applied consistently and fairly.

Orders