R v Veech - [2001] NSWSC 68

CITATION: R v Veech [2001] NSWSC 68 revised - 21/02/2001

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70039/00

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 February 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Damien Justin Veech

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Crown: D Howard
Prisoner: P.Bodor QC

SOLICITORS: DPP
LAC

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years 6 months less 136 days, to commence from 1/12/2000 and to expire 1/2/2007. Specified non-parole period 59 months less 136 days, to commence from 18/12/00, to expire 24/06/2005. Earliest date eligible for release on parole 25/6/2005; 19/2/01 sentence varied under slip rule to specify a non-parole period specified expiry date as 4/7/2005

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ AT CL

THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2001

70039/00 - REGINA v DAMIEN JUSTIN VEECH
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 5 December 2000 the prisoner was indicted for the murder of Brett Van Grecken. To that charge he pleaded not guilty. He was acquitted at his trial of the charge of murder but found guilty of manslaughter. It is clear that, in returning its verdict, the jury found that he had not been acting in self-defence. An issue has however arisen as to whether the verdict returned was one of manslaughter by reason of provocation, or one of manslaughter by reason of an unlawful and dangerous act. For the resolution of that issue, which is of some importance for sentencing purposes, I will need to examine the evidence in a little detail.

2 The prisoner lived with his de facto partner Jane Ahweto at number 9 Third Avenue, Toukley. These premises were leased through the office of L J Hooker in that suburb. The deceased, who had been a friend or at least an associate of the prisoner for some time, had a history of mental illness and admissions to various psychiatric hospitals over the years in relation to a bipolar disorder and frontal lobe syndrome attributable to a motorcycle accident. Although seemingly free of hospital admissions since 1994, he was known from time to time to enter into manic episodes, in the course of which he spoke quickly, became hyperactive and verbally aggressive.

3 It was the opinion of Dr Barclay that he had not been properly managed in hospital for these conditions and that he needed medication to control his behaviour. At the time of the offence he was, however, out and about in the community, and he was not taking any medication, nor apparently was he under supervision.

4 By reason of his condition he had a minor criminal record for offences of assault and similar matters, some of which were dealt with under section 32 of the Mental Health Act. On one occasion, when stopped by police, he had endeavoured to set fire to a motorcycle. On another occasion proximate to his killing, he had behaved in an aggressive manner towards the owner…

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 Veech

Details

AGLC: R v Veech [2001] NSWSC 68
Case: [2001] NSWSC 68
Decision Date: 8 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Veech, the defendant, Damien Justin Veech, was found guilty of manslaughter but acquitted of murder in relation to the death of Brett Van Grecken. The primary legal issue before the court was determining whether the manslaughter conviction was due to provocation or an unlawful and dangerous act. The court concluded that the manslaughter was due to provocation rather than an unlawful and dangerous act, as the defendant had a deliberate intent to kill the deceased. The court found that the defendant's actions were excessive in response to the provocation offered by the deceased. The court also considered the objective and subjective circumstances of the case in determining the appropriate sentence. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and six months, less 136 days, with a non-parole period of 59 months, less 136 days. The earliest date for eligibility for parole release was set as 4 July 2005.

Orders