R v Vickerstaff (No 2)

Case [2019] ACTSC 343


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Vickerstaff (No 2)

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 343

Hearing Date:

2 and 5 December 2019

DecisionDate:

10 December 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [60]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – manslaughter – sentencing of three co-offenders – offence by joint commission with varied degrees of culpability – offender identified as the principal offender – offender entered a plea of guilty following pleas of guilty by co-offenders – some evidence of premeditation – weapon used in offence – use of weapon opportunistic – consideration of remorse – consideration of mental health diagnoses

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 15

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 20, 45A

Cases Cited:

R v Cassidy [2008] ACTSC 13

R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48
R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 73
R v England [2001] ACTSC 33
R v England (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Miles CJ, 26 April 2001)
R v Navin [2016] ACTSC 109
R v Singh [1999] ACTSC 66; 154 ACTR 93
R v Porritt [2008] ACTSC 71
R v Urlich [2018] ACTSC 345
Urlich v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 30

Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Graeme Vickerstaff (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

R Christensen (Crown)

J Purnell SC (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aulich Criminal Law (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 274 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Graeme Jarrett Vickerstaff, pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter by joint commission contrary to s 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

  1. The victim, Bobby Stewart Allan, died after an altercation involving Mr Vickerstaff, Dean Welsh and Colin Booth.

  1. Mr Allan was a supplier of the drug ice.  Both Mr Allan and Mr Vickerstaff bought and sold drugs.  Mr Vickerstaff had purchased drugs from Mr Allan for a period of 18 months prior to Mr Allan’s death.  Mr Vickerstaff, who was a mechanic, had worked on Mr Allan’s vehicles over that time.  He had a belief that Mr Allan was intimately involved with his girlfriend, who I will refer to as CD, with whom Mr Allan shared house.  Mr Allan had also supplied methamphetamine to Mr Booth.  Mr Welsh had no personal association with Mr Allan but knew he sold drugs to Mr Vickerstaff. 

  1. In the early hours of 17 December 2017, the offenders had attended Mr Allan’s house with the intention of purchasing drugs.  They travelled there by car driven by Mr Booth.  Mr Vickerstaff and Mr Welsh had used heroin while waiting to be picked up by Mr Booth.  On the way there Mr Booth stopped at the 7-Eleven service station in Fyshwick and put petrol in the car.  Mr Vickerstaff bought an aerosol can of Motortech degreaser.  Mr Welsh was with him at the time and knew that it had been purchased.  Mr Vickerstaff purchased…

Continue reading R v Vickerstaff (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Vickerstaff (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 343
Case
[2019] ACTSC 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vickerstaff (No 2), the defendant was sentenced following a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the primary concern was the appropriate punishment for the defendant, given the nature of the offence and his role within it. The court was tasked with considering the appropriate sentence for a defendant who was part of a joint criminal enterprise, but who was identified as the principal offender due to his greater culpability.

The central legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering his role in the offence, the degree of premeditation, the use of a weapon, and his expressions of remorse. The court also needed to assess the relevance of the defendant's mental health diagnoses in the context of sentencing. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at a sentence that was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

The court reasoned that the defendant's culpability was significant, given his role as the principal offender and the use of a weapon in the commission of the crime. Despite some evidence of premeditation, the court considered the weapon was used opportunistically. The defendant's expressions of remorse were acknowledged, as was the impact of his mental health diagnoses. After weighing these considerations, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect the defendant's culpability while also taking into account his remorse and mental health. The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraph [60].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [60]

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.