R v Vincec - [2017] VSC 602

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0172

THE QUEEN

RICHARD VINCEC

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 OCTOBER 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 OCTOBER 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vincec
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 602

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Manslaughter – Sentence – Death caused by impact of head of victim on ground after infliction of single punch – Offence involved consumption of drugs and alcohol – Genuine remorse – Early plea of guilty – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period set of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose QC	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Richter QC	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

Richard Vincec, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Jaiden Walker, the maximum penalty for which is 20 years’ imprisonment. The circumstances surrounding the offence are as follows.

Circumstances

On Saturday 6 May 2017, after meeting your friend, Jack Parnell, at Southern Cross Station at 1:00 pm, you caught a taxi to the Melbourne Cricket Ground to watch a football game between Carlton and Collingwood. During the game you had about four mid-strength beers and left the ground at approximately 5:00 pm. You and Parnell went to a few bars and ended up at the Cherry Bar in AC/DC Lane near Flinders Lane, Melbourne.

That day, Jaiden Walker went to the house of his friend, Jed Bolte, where Bolte’s pregnant partner, Cassandra Ferguson, was celebrating a baby shower. Bolte’s sisters, Brooke Ridley and Belinda Griffiths, were among those who were present.

At about 4:00 pm, Jaiden and Bolte went to the Crown Casino.

At about 5:11 pm, Bolte called Ferguson and told her that they had left the Crown Casino and gone to Bartronica, which is a bar in Flinders Lane.

At about 5:45 pm, the baby shower finished and Ferguson, Ridley and Griffiths went into the city and met Bolte and the deceased at about 7:30 pm. They stayed there until approximately 10:15 pm when they went to the Cherry Bar, after visiting about three other bars on the way.

Griffiths struck up a conversation with you and your friend Parnell and introduced you to both her group. You told Bolte and Ridley that you were in possession of an illicit drug and offered to share it with them. The three of you went into a cubicle in the men’s toilets and, after taking some of the drug, Bolte then left the cubicle. At about 11:00 pm, a security guard found you and Ridley kissing in the cubicle, which was described as ‘making out’; and requested that you and Ridley leave the bar.

After leaving the bar, Ridley telephoned Ferguson and a short time later Ferguson, Bolte, Griffiths, Parnell and Jaiden came out of the venue and met with Ridley and you in the lane.

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 Vincec

Details

AGLC: R v Vincec [2017] VSC 602
Case: [2017] VSC 602
Decision Date: 19 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vincec involved a defendant who was convicted of manslaughter following the death of a victim who suffered a fatal impact to the head on the ground after being struck by a single punch. The incident occurred in the context of the defendant's consumption of drugs and alcohol. The case was heard and determined in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter and the factors that should be considered in determining the appropriate length of imprisonment and the non-parole period.

The court was required to consider several factors in determining the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's background, the circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating factors. The court considered the defendant's consumption of drugs and alcohol at the time of the offence, as well as the fact that the defendant had pleaded guilty early and expressed genuine remorse. The court also considered the defendant's very good prospects of rehabilitation.

After considering all of the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter was imprisonment for a total of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years. The court found that the defendant's early plea of guilty and genuine remorse were significant mitigating factors, as was the defendant's very good prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the fact that it involved the consumption of drugs and alcohol and resulted in the death of the victim.

In light of the above, the court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a total of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years. The court also made an order for the defendant to be subject to a number of conditions during his period of imprisonment, including that he participate in rehabilitation programs and undergo regular drug and alcohol testing.

Orders