R v Warwick (sentence) - [2012] VSC 382

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

SCR 2012 0026

THE QUEEN

DANIEL JOSEPH WARWICK

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6-10, 13-15 August 2012 (trial) 29 August 2012 (plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 September 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Warwick (sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 382	(1^st revision 13-09-2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Conduct endangering life – Offender went to scene, armed with loaded handgun – Offender fired shots at or in direction of unarmed persons – Offender on parole at time of offending – Serious examples of both offences – Numerous prior convictions – No remorse – Sentenced to 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for intentionally causing serious injury – Sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for conduct endangering life, with 3 months’ cumulation – Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 4 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S Ginsbourg	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Matthews	Emma Turnbull

HER HONOUR:

Daniel Warwick, you have been found guilty by a jury of one charge of intentionally causing serious injury, and one charge of conduct endangering life.

Both offences took place around 9 pm on 31 May 2011, in the Nicholson Street mall in Footscray.

You had gone to the mall that evening, shortly after receiving a telephone call from your niece, Brooke Patterson, to whom you were like a big brother. She sounded distressed, and told you she had been bashed and robbed in the mall by some African men.

When you arrived at the end of the mall, a few minutes later, it was clear that Ms Paterson was in no danger, although she was still distressed. At that stage, it would have been easy just to take her away from the scene, in the car in which you were travelling. Instead, you went into the mall with Ms Paterson, armed with a loaded revolver which you had brought with you from the car.

You found a group of people, which included some African men, sitting on a bench seat near the Commonwealth Bank, drinking alcohol. The group included Arop Deng, Samual Dichak, Natasha Leone, Zac Long, and two men known only as Sultan and Steve. You went up to them, aggressively demanding to know which one of them it was who had assaulted or robbed Ms Patterson. You were pointing the loaded gun at each of them, as you did so. Ms Patterson told you it was none of the people sitting on the bench.

You and Ms Patterson walked away from the group, and went looking elsewhere for the men who had assaulted her.

As you were walking away, Mr Deng yelled out something like “What the fuck’s with the gun?” or “What’s with the fake gun?” He was yelling angrily, slurring his words and speaking with a heavy accent. He was…

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 Warwick (sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (sentence) [2012] VSC 382
Case: [2012] VSC 382
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the respondent, Warwick, was charged with intentionally causing serious injury and conduct endangering life. The charges arose from an incident in which Warwick went to a scene armed with a loaded handgun, subsequently firing shots at or in the direction of unarmed persons. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these serious offences, considering factors such as the nature of the offences, Warwick's prior criminal history, and the circumstances of the offending. Warwick was on parole at the time of the offending, which added another layer of gravity to the sentencing considerations.

The primary legal issue before the court was to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation against the background of Warwick's extensive criminal history and the circumstances of the offences. The court noted the intentional nature of the acts, the use of a firearm, and the presence of multiple victims as particularly egregious factors. Additionally, the court took into account that Warwick showed no remorse for his actions, and had numerous prior convictions. The court also considered the principle of cumulative sentencing, where the sentences for multiple offences are to be served concurrently to the extent possible, while ensuring that the overall punishment remains proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Warwick to five years and nine months' imprisonment for the charge of intentionally causing serious injury. For the charge of conduct endangering life, the court imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment, with a three-month cumulation, resulting in a total effective sentence of six years. The non-parole period was set at four years. This outcome reflects the court's view that the sentence must adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders