R v Walsh - [2005] VSC 233

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1432 of 2005

THE QUEEN

JOAN MARY WALSH

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 May and 2 June 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Joan Mary Walsh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 233

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Attempted Murder – Unprovoked stabbing attack on helpful security guard – Very serious injuries – Early plea of guilty – Prison for 11 years – Non-parole period of 8 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Rapke Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W. Stougiannos	Paul Vale and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

You have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder on 27 December 2004 of Karen Emmerzael.

Karen Emmerzael was not known to you. She was a security guard. In December 2004, she was working for a company that was engaged to protect premises of the Commonwealth Bank in Batman Street Melbourne. You drove your car to those premises very early on a Monday morning last year. It was shortly before 1 a.m. on 27 December. Karen Emmerzael was in the foyer of the premises, inside the locked doors. You attracted her attention. You told her that your car had broken down. You asked if you could use the telephone. She let you in to use the telephone. You started to dial. You then hung up and asked to use the toilet. You said that you were a member of the Commonwealth Bank staff. Karen Emmerzael allowed you access to the toilet. She then escorted you back to the foyer.

You then attacked her with a knife from behind. When she realised what you were about, she tried to defend herself. In so protecting herself, she suffered major cuts to her hands. During the attack, you stabbed her to her face. You stabbed her in the lower back. Despite the savagery of your attack, she was able to escape. You left the premises and drove away.

The victim impact statement of Karen Emmerzael has been read out in open court. It made for depressing listening. The very serious stabbing injuries that you inflicted will have major long-term repercussions for her. She is disfigured. She is incapacitated. She will be severely limited in many activities. Her capacity to work has been impaired in many ways. As well as the major physical injuries, she is left with bad psychological scarring.

I have great difficulty understanding what factors contributed to your choosing to attack your victim. That is the more troubling given that I have been supplied on the plea with copies of a number of medical and like reports. The factors that are of a short-term nature that are very perplexing include the following. You did not know Karen Emmerzael. She went out of her way to help you at what she believed from your actions was a time of need…

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 Walsh

Details

AGLC: R v Walsh [2005] VSC 233
Case: [2005] VSC 233
Decision Date: 30 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walsh involved the defendant, Walsh, who was charged with the attempted murder of a security guard. The incident occurred when Walsh attacked the security guard without any provocation, causing the guard to suffer very serious injuries. Walsh entered an early plea of guilty, which was a factor considered during sentencing. The case was heard and determined by a court in Australia.

The central legal issues in this case were the appropriate sentence for an attempted murder offence, taking into account the severity of the attack, the lack of provocation, the early plea of guilty, and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation and consider the impact on the victim and society.

The court found that the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries inflicted warranted a significant prison sentence. However, the early plea of guilty and the potential for rehabilitation were mitigating factors. After weighing all these considerations, the court sentenced Walsh to a total of 11 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 8 years. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence while also allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the 11-year prison sentence with an 8-year non-parole period, reflecting the court's balanced approach to the sentencing of Walsh.

Orders