R v Townley - [2010] VSC 347

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1409 of 2009

THE QUEEN

TROY JOSHUA TOWNLEY

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	Trial 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 19, 30, 31 March, 1April 2010 Sentencing Hearing 19 July 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 September 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Townley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 347

---

Murder - drug related - sentence 24 years with a minimum of 19.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P D’Arcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W Toohey	C Marshall & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Troy Joshua Townley on 1 April 2010, you were convicted of the murder of Chabel Boulos. At the request of your counsel a plea hearing was deferred until 19 July 2010.

The deceased in this case Chabel Boulos was aged 24 at the time he was killed. He was commonly referred to by all as Charlie. He was one of five children of Tannous and Mahassein Boulos.

At the time of his death he was living in Essendon, having lived at a number of different addresses shortly prior to that. He had no prior convictions, apart from driving matters, although he had been charged in respect of some drug related offences – none of those were finalised at the time of his death.

The circumstances of the offending in this case are that you were in a relationship with a woman by the name of Karen Hanna who lived at 38 Stradbroke Drive, St Albans with her then three year old son. That relationship had been in existence for approximately 12 months. You were living at 7 Barkeley Crescent in Derrimut, unemployed and had been unemployed for approximately 12 months.

On Sunday, 22 June 2008, Charlie Boulos was seen by a number of persons and later in the early hours of the morning of the 23^rd he contacted Karen Hanna and asked her to pick him up in her car, which she did. She drove him to Keilor East where he purchased a gram of the drug ice, for approximately $400, and then returned to Karen Hanna’s house in St Albans. After arriving back at the house, Karen Hanna, Charlie Boulos and Karen’s brother, Michael Hanna all used a crack pipe to smoke ice. Ms Hanna, during her evidence, stated that she had at different stages gone in to check on her sleeping son, and on one of those occasions she noticed a car similar to yours driving past the house. She said, at that stage, she started to exchange text messages with you.

Meantime, Charlie Boulos was using his phone and arranging drug deals with a number of people. He left on foot at one stage, met up with Luke Demestichis and swapped a car stereo for some ice. At some time around or after 5.30am, Charlie Boulos requested Michael Hanna…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Townley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] VSC 347
Decision Date: 6 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Townley, which was heard by the Court of Appeal, involved the appellant, Townley, who was convicted of murder related to drug activities. Townley was found guilty of killing a man during a drug deal and was sentenced to 24 years in prison with a minimum non-parole period of 19 years. Townley appealed against the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Townley was appropriate in the context of the crime committed, taking into account the principles of sentencing in Australian law. This involved examining the nature of the crime, the role of Townley in the events leading to the death, and the sentencing principles that should apply in such cases.

The court considered the severity of the crime and Townley's involvement in it, including the premeditation and the violent nature of the act. However, it also took into account mitigating factors such as Townley's background and any potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that while the crime was serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The appeal against the sentence was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court, and Townley's conviction and sentence remain as originally determined.

Orders