R v Sumner - [2008] VSC 176

Not Restricted
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No 1407 of 2007

THE QUEEN

JAMIE LESLIE SUMNER

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27-31 March, 1-24 April, 9 and 23 May 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 May 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sumner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 176

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder of youth, wrongly believed to be responsible for attack on killer’s younger brother – Kidnapping and subsequent murder to exact vengeance – Heroin addicted killer – Lack of remorse – Sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J R Champion SC	Ms A Cannon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P A Dunn QC with Ms A C Fox	Michael Rafter & Assoc

HIS HONOUR:

Jamie Leslie Sumner, you have been found guilty of the murder of Raymond Allen and it falls to me to sentence you.

You were born on 25 March 1978 as one of the six children of Lawrence and Carolyn Sumner and at the time of the murder on 25 April 2005 you were 27 years of age. You were then unemployed and living with your mother, your younger sister and your younger brother, Daniel. You were also addicted to heroin.

The circumstances of the offence

Shortly before Anzac Day 2005, Daniel was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from acute psychosis and depression the result of smoking cannabis. Two days before Anzac Day, while still in hospital, he told your older brother, Stephen Sumner, that he had been anally raped while under the effects of benzodiazepines and cannabis. At the time of making that allegation, Daniel Sumner was distraught and thought to be at risk of suicide. He had been diagnosed as suffering from a serious drug induced psychosis with consequent florid delusions.

The Crown case at trial, which I take the jury to have accepted, was that news of the alleged rape spread rapidly through the Sumner family and by 24 April 2005 you knew of the allegation and knew that the culprit was alleged to be Raymond Allen. You were incensed by what you believed Raymond Allen to have done to Daniel and you resolved to find Raymond Allen and kill him. You learned from one of Daniel’s friends that Raymond Allen had recently moved to Mooroopna to live with his father and, on the afternoon of 24 April 2005, you telephoned the Allen residence in Mooroopna and spoke briefly by telephone to Raymond Allen’s grandmother. In that way, you confirmed that Raymond Allen lived there. You then telephoned one of your old friends, Shaun Benporath, who had also moved to live in Mooroopna, and told him that you were coming up to see him.

At approximately 9.00 pm that evening, you went to see your heroin dealer, Chi Dung Lien, at a park in Napoleon Street, Footscray and 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 Sumner

Details

AGLC: R v Sumner [2008] VSC 176
Case: [2008] VSC 176
Decision Date: 23 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sumner, the defendant was convicted of the murder of a youth, which occurred after the defendant, believing the victim to be responsible for an earlier attack on his younger brother, kidnapped and killed the victim in a fit of vengeance. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia, where the defendant's sentence was under review. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case. Mitigating factors included the defendant's heroin addiction and lack of previous criminal history, while the severity of the crime and the defendant's lack of remorse were considered as aggravating factors.

The court meticulously evaluated the circumstances surrounding the crime and the character of the defendant. It acknowledged the defendant's addiction as a significant mitigating factor, suggesting a degree of diminished responsibility. However, the court also emphasised the heinous nature of the crime, which involved premeditation, kidnapping, and a brutal murder. The lack of remorse exhibited by the defendant further compounded the gravity of the offence. Balancing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence should reflect both the severity of the crime and the mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years, providing a framework for both punishment and potential rehabilitation.

Orders