R v Stuttard - [2006] VSCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 222 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
BENJAMIN ALAN STUTTARD

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., NEAVE and REDLICH, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 May 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 May 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 112

---

Criminal Law – recklessly causing serious injury – three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years – leave to appeal confined to the non-parole period - sentencing judge considered each of the relevant mitigating factors – sentence not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. with Mr B. Sonnet	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

MAXWELL, P.:

I will invite Neave, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

NEAVE, J.A.:

The appellant, Mr Stuttard, aged 26, was convicted on 19 July 2005 on one count of recklessly causing serious injury. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. On 18 November 2005 Chernov, J.A. granted leave under s. 582 of the Crimes Act to bring an appeal against the sentence. Chernov J.A. granted leave to appeal against the sentence “insofar as it comprises the non parole period.”

The offence followed a period of conflict between the appellant and the victim, Mr Scott Burgess. Burgess had previously shared a house with the appellant and was annoyed that he had been asked to leave. Burgess was also angry with the appellant for sleeping with Burgess’ former girlfriend. Animosity between the appellant and the victim increased in the period before 30 January 2005, when the offences occurred. Stuttard claimed that Burgess had previously sent a false SMS message stating that Stuttard's house was on fire. This animosity culminated in the attack on Burgess which gave rise to the appellant's conviction.

The hostility came to a head on the night of 30 January, when there were a series of threats and minor assaults involving the appellant, friends of Burgess and Burgess himself. In their final encounter the appellant stabbed the victim, who suffered very serious injuries. The medical evidence was that there was one stab wound.

The events of the evening of 30 January unfolded as follows. The appellant attended Vault Night Club in Werribee in the early hours of the morning with his girlfriend, and a friend. By this time in the evening, he had already shared three

bottles of wine with his girlfriend, and had also drunk ‘a few cans’[1]. When he first arrived, he encountered Lucas McLean leaving the club with Daniel Corp. He spoke briefly with McLean, who was a friend of Burgess's, accusing him of spreading slanderous rumours. Unsatisfied with McLean’s response, Stuttard punched McLean, who ran back to the safety of the nightclub. After a few minutes, the appellant, his girlfriend and Corp went into the club. While there, the appellant was warned against his behaviour by several friends of McLean. After about half an hour, the…

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 Stuttard

Details

AGLC: R v Stuttard [2006] VSCA 112
Case: [2006] VSCA 112
Decision Date: 12 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Stuttard was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Stuttard, was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury to another person. Following his conviction, Stuttard was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. Stuttard sought leave to appeal against his sentence, specifically targeting the non-parole period.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered each of the relevant mitigating factors. The court needed to determine if the sentence, particularly the non-parole period, was disproportionate given the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors presented.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered each of the relevant mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. The court noted that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The leave to appeal was confined to the non-parole period, and as this was found to be appropriate, the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The court’s reasoning centred on the thorough consideration of mitigating factors and the proportionality of the sentence to the offence committed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the non-parole period, was upheld.

Orders