R v Surtees - [2022] VSC 124

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0128

THE QUEEN
v
ANGELA SURTEES	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	30 July 2021, 27 January and 18 February 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Surtees
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 124

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Accused doused her husband in petrol before lighting cigarette lighter in close proximity to him – Intention not to set fire to but to terrify victim - Victim burnt to death – Plea of guilty – Background of family violence relied upon in reduction of moral culpability – Post-traumatic stress disorder of accused relied on in support of several limbs of R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’) – Requisite connection between condition and offending not established – No reduction in moral culpability – No reason why just punishment and general deterrence should assume less than usual importance – Serious offending with high degree of moral culpability –Whether accused truly remorseful – Most important sentencing purposes just punishment, denunciation and general deterrence – Rehabilitation of some significance – Sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of eight years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Ms S Lenthall	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr J Williams with Ms J Munster	Criminal Lawyers Geelong

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Angela Surtees, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your husband, Daniel Surtees, a crime for which the maximum penalty at the time, and that which applies to you, is imprisonment for 20 years.

The form of manslaughter to which you have pleaded guilty is manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The unlawful and dangerous acts by which you brought about the death of your husband, as your plea of guilty acknowledged, were the pouring of a significant quantity of unleaded petrol over him and his clothing and then operating a cigarette lighter in close proximity to him, causing him to be engulfed in flames, leading to the serious injuries which brought about his death. The dousing of your husband with petrol was a serious assault by you. The lighting of the cigarette lighter with the intention of causing him to fear that you would set him alight was itself a serious assault, albeit an intimidatory one.

Insofar as some of your actions and statements from the time of these shocking events may have betrayed a belief that the death of your husband was an accident, although the case against you was put and I sentence you upon the basis that you did not intend to set fire to him, as the brief statement of your crime above makes plain, Daniel Surtees’ death was not the result of a mere accident. You, and you alone, caused his tragic death by your criminal and…

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 Surtees

Details

AGLC: R v Surtees [2022] VSC 124
Case: [2022] VSC 124
Decision Date: 11 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Surtees, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, resulting in the death of her husband. The appellant had doused her husband in petrol and subsequently lit a cigarette lighter in close proximity to him, with the intention not to set him on fire but to terrify him. Unfortunately, the victim was severely burnt and later died from his injuries. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. The court was required to consider the background of family violence and the appellant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in determining the appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue was whether the appellant's PTSD and the circumstances of family violence warranted a reduction in her moral culpability. The court considered the principles established in R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269, which outline the criteria for assessing the impact of a mental condition on culpability. However, the court found that the requisite connection between the appellant's PTSD and her offending was not established. Consequently, the appellant's moral culpability could not be reduced. The court emphasised that, given the seriousness of the offence and the high degree of moral culpability, the purposes of just punishment and general deterrence should assume less than usual importance. Nevertheless, rehabilitation also held some significance in the sentencing process.

After weighing all the relevant factors, the court sentenced the appellant to 12 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years. The court concluded that the most important sentencing purposes were just punishment, denunciation, and general deterrence. The court also noted the appellant's expressions of remorse, although it was not deemed to be the most crucial factor in determining the sentence. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the appellant's moral culpability, and the broader objectives of the criminal justice system.

Orders