R v Veerman - [2015] VSC 193

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0081

THE QUEEN

DANIEL VEERMAN

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 April 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 May 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Veerman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 193

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter – Unpremeditated killing – Circumstances of killing unknown – Concealment of body – Moderate Verdins considerations – Guilty plea – No genuine remorse – Sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Dane QC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes	Robert Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Daniel Veerman, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Kyal Scanlon on 7 March 2011.

The two of you first met in the previous year, through a mutual friend. You would occasionally socialise together. In early 2011, you returned to Melbourne, after spending some time in Queensland.

On the morning of his death, Mr Scanlon left his home in Kilsyth, to walk to a Salvation Army Centre in Mooroolbark, in order to pick up some food vouchers. His partner, Kristy Coyne, expected him to return home that day; he never did.

Various people saw you and Mr Scanlon together that day. You were first seen greeting each other, a few blocks from your parents’ house in Mooroolbark. You were subsequently seen together at the Salvation Army Centre, and at the shops, as well as driving around in your car.

Around 1.30 pm, Mr Scanlon texted a friend, to say that he would be home around 2.30 pm. Half an hour later, Ms Coyne spoke to Mr Scanlon on the phone; he said he had picked up the food vouchers and was on his way home. That seems to have been the last time anyone other than you spoke to Mr Scanlon.

Twelve days later, a bushwalker discovered Mr Scanlon’s body in a forested area of the Dandenong Ranges National Park, at Olinda.

Due to the body’s advanced state of decomposition, the forensic pathologist was unable to determine the precise cause of Mr Scanlon’s death; however, the injuries were consistent with death occurring as a result of neck compression.

The precise circumstances of the killing are unclear. You have given no account of what happened between you and Mr Scanlon. There were no witnesses to what occurred. You now accept that you were the only person responsible for Mr Scanlon’s death.

The prosecution and defence have agreed to the following matters, for the purposes of sentencing you. There is no suggestion that Mr Scanlon was unwilling to drive out to the Dandenongs, or to walk with you along the track to the remote area where he died. There is no evidence of any pre-existing animosity between the two of you. It is not suggested that you had any intention to harm…

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 Veerman

Details

AGLC: R v Veerman [2015] VSC 193
Case: [2015] VSC 193
Decision Date: 14 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted for the unlawful killing of an individual in circumstances amounting to manslaughter. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with assessing the sentence handed down by the lower court. The central issue was whether the original sentence was appropriate, given the nature of the crime and the appellant's conduct. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, particularly focusing on the nature of the unlawful act, the level of culpability, and the appellant's conduct following the crime, including the concealment of the body and the lack of genuine remorse.

The court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation in the sentencing process. The appellant's unpremeditated act, leading to the victim's death, was a significant factor, as was the concealment of the body which indicated a lack of remorse. The court also considered the moderate Verdins principle, which requires the sentence to be proportionate to the severity of the crime. The appellant's guilty plea and the absence of any genuine remorse were further assessed in determining the appropriate sentence.

The High Court found that the original sentence was indeed appropriate. The court concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered the circumstances of the killing, the nature of the unlawful act, and the appellant's post-crime conduct. The sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of six years reflected a balanced approach to the principles of sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the appellant's lack of remorse. The court upheld the sentence, affirming that it was commensurate with the seriousness of the crime and the appellant's culpability.

Orders