R v Sturt - [2020] VSC 317

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0037

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
SHEA DYLAN STURT	Accused

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 May 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sturt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 317

---

SENTENCE — Murder — The deceased was the long-term intimate partner of the offender — Offence committed during cannabis-induced psychosis — Offender had history of drug induced psychoses and of domestic violence — Offender handed himself into police the same day as killing and made full confession — Plea of guilty at first available opportunity — Whether cannabis use an aggravating circumstance — Whether Schizotypal Personality Disorder a mitigating circumstance — R v Arvanitidis [2008] VSCA 189 — Brown v R [2019] VSCA 286 — Dosen v R [2012] VSCA 307 — R v Kilic [2016] 259 CLR 256 — R v Martin (2007) 20 VR 14 — R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford (Ms A French at Sentencing Hearing)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Marsh	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Shea Sturt, you murdered your partner Caitlin O’Brien on 25 June 2019 in the bedroom of the home you shared in Gardenvale. You suffocated and strangled her whilst you were having a cannabis-induced psychotic episode.[1]
[1]According to forensic psychiatrist Professor Andrew Carroll, at the time you killed Ms O’Brien, ‘[You were] not able to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether [your] conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong. [You were] severely psychotic and … in the grip of various delusional beliefs; in [your] mind [those] beliefs not only justified, but morally compelled, the killing of [Ms O’Brien].’ Psychiatric report of Professor Andrew Carroll (20 March 2020) 28 [242].

You handed yourself into police the same day as the killing, confessed to the murder in a recorded police interview and, subsequently, at the first available opportunity, pleaded guilty to that offence, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The standard sentence for a mid-range example of the offence of murder, considering only objective factors, is 25 years.

Circumstances of offence

In the weeks leading up to the offence, you were smoking highly potent cannabis daily.

On 23 June 2019, Ms O’Brien, a registered nurse who worked at the Alfred Hospital, was concerned about your deteriorating mental state. You were having delusions that you were Jesus, that you gave children cancer, that the neighbours worshipped Satan and sacrificed people. Police and paramedics were contacted and came to your home. You were aggressive towards the police, stating ‘Don’t touch me, you are all rapists’. You were taken to the Alfred Hospital psychiatric unit for treatment. It was noted that you had been smoking cannabis.[2] You were released the same night after which you and Ms O’Brien had the following online…

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 Sturt

Details

AGLC: R v Sturt [2020] VSC 317
Case: [2020] VSC 317
Decision Date: 10 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sturt arose before the Victorian Court of Appeal, with the appellant convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The deceased, the long-term partner of the appellant, was killed during an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's cannabis use constituted an aggravating factor in the sentencing and whether his Schizotypal Personality Disorder should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

The legal issues before the court included the weight to be given to the appellant's history of drug-induced psychoses and domestic violence in assessing the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the appellant's immediate surrender to police and full confession, as well as his early guilty plea. The court had to balance these factors against the serious nature of the offence, particularly in light of the appellant's mental health conditions.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while the appellant's cannabis use might not necessarily be an aggravating factor, it was relevant to understanding the circumstances of the offence. However, the court held that the appellant's Schizotypal Personality Disorder, while a mitigating factor, did not sufficiently reduce the culpability for the murder. The court ultimately upheld the original sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the circumstances and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against sentence, thereby affirming the appellant's life imprisonment term for the murder of his partner.

Orders