R v Venn - [2023] QSC 173

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Venn [2023] QSC 173

PARTIES:
R

v
JUDITH ANN VENN
(defendant)

FILENO/S: BS No 568 of 2023

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 4 August 2023

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 28 July 2023

JUDGE: Williams J

ORDERS:
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   In respect of the pre-sentence custody, time spent in custody from 18 August 2020 to 3 August 2023 being a total of 1,081 days be declared as time already served under the sentence.

2.   In respect of the single count on the indictment, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight and a half years.

3.   I set a parole eligibility date as of today, 4 August 2023.

4.   A conviction is to be recorded. FURTHER, THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The reports of Dr Hopkins dated 28 January 2022, Dr van de Hoef dated 7 October 2022 and Dr Arthur dated 12 October 2022 be provided to the parole authorities.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where the defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing her husband – where she was of diminished responsibility at the time of the killing – where the sentence must be structured to take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1

Pickering v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 151

R v Goodfellow (Unreported, Fryberg J, 15 October 2004)
R v Hill (Unreported, Atkinson J, 5 September 2001)
R v Johnstone (1987) 45 SASR 482
R v Lock (Unreported, Mullins J, 10 September 2001)R v Nielsen (Unreported, Dalton J, 16 February 2012)
R v Potter; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2008] QCA 91 R v Pringle; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2012] QCA 223
R v Ward (indictment number 74/1999; 8 December 2000)
R v Zarnke [2019] QCA 141

COUNSEL:

D Kovac for the Crown

C Wilson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown

Bell Criminal Lawyers for the respondent

Judith Ann Venn, you are to be sentenced today on one count of manslaughter (domestic violence offence). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life. You pleaded guilty to this charge when arraigned before me on Friday, 28 July 2023.

You pleaded guilty to this charge at an early stage following a hearing before the Mental Health Court and the withdrawal of the charge of murder and its replacement with the manslaughter charge. I accept this as an early plea and take the plea into account as a mitigating factor. What this means is that I can reduce or moderate the sentence that I otherwise would impose on the basis that you have cooperated with the criminal justice system and avoided the need for a trial.

You are currently 69 years of age and were 66 years old at the time of the offending on 14 August…

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 Venn

Details

AGLC: R v Venn [2023] QSC 173
Case: [2023] QSC 173
Decision Date: 4 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Venn involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of her husband. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant’s diminished responsibility at the time of the killing. The defendant had a history of mental health issues, including a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and depression, which impacted her ability to control her actions.

The court was required to weigh the circumstances surrounding the offence and the defendant’s personal background. The legal issues included the assessment of the appropriate sentence considering the mitigating factor of diminished responsibility, the necessity for a structured sentence that addresses the defendant's personal circumstances, and the consideration of pre-sentence custody time in determining the overall sentence. The court also needed to set a parole eligibility date and ensure that relevant medical reports were provided to the parole authorities.

The Court of Appeal, after considering the evidence and submissions, determined that the defendant’s sentence should reflect her diminished responsibility. The court declared the time already served in custody and imposed an eight and a half-year term of imprisonment. It set a parole eligibility date from the day of the sentencing, 4 August 2023. The court also directed that medical reports from Dr Hopkins, Dr van de Hoef, and Dr Arthur be provided to the parole authorities. The court recorded a conviction, ensuring that the sentence was structured to appropriately consider the defendant's personal circumstances and mental health issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. In respect of the pre-sentence custody, time spent in custody from 18 August 2020 to 3 August 2023 being a total of 1,081 days be declared as time already served under the sentence.

2. In respect of the single count on the indictment, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight and a half years.

3. I set a parole eligibility date as of today, 4 August 2023.

4. A conviction is to be recorded. FURTHER, THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The reports of Dr Hopkins dated 28 January 2022, Dr van de Hoef dated 7 October 2022 and Dr Arthur dated 12 October 2022 be provided to the parole authorities.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Venn [2023] QSC 173
PARTIES:	R v JUDITH ANN VENN (defendant)
FILENO/S:	BS No 568 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	4 August 2023
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	28 July 2023
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDERS:	THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. In respect of the pre-sentence custody, time spent in custody from 18 August 2020 to 3 August 2023 being a total of 1,081 days be declared as time already served under the sentence. 2. In respect of the single count on the indictment, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight and a half years. 3. I set a parole eligibility date as of today, 4 August 2023. 4. A conviction is to be recorded. FURTHER, THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 1. The reports of Dr Hopkins dated 28 January 2022, Dr van de Hoef dated 7 October 2022 and Dr Arthur dated 12 October 2022 be provided to the parole authorities.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where the defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing her husband – where she was of diminished responsibility at the time of the killing – where the sentence must be structured to take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1