R v Weston, Wayne Stanley
[2001] VSC 345
•13 September 2001
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1520 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| V |
| WAYNE STANLEY WESTON |
---
JUDGE: | Teague J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16-19 July 2001 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 September 2001 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R. v. Wayne Stanley Weston | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2001] VSC 345 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Father battered to death at the hands of a provoked son – Sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q. C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr I. McIvor | Victorian Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Wayne Stanley Weston, you have been found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. The same jury had returned a verdict of not guilty of murder, in killing your father on 14 March 2000.
Your father was a man who, at least partly through his liking for alcohol, treated badly your mother, you and your siblings. Your feelings towards him were somewhat ambivalent. It seems that he treated you less badly than others in the family. You came to his aid at times when he needed help as when his excessive drinking of alcohol led to unconsciousness.
For a time as a young man your father had you work at his factory at 21 First Avenue, Sunshine. You then helped your father improve his business in repairing 44 gallon drums and the like. Your father promised that, in time, you could have the factory to do with it what you wanted.
He allowed you to shift into the factory in February 1994. You paid him $120 a month. The arrangement worked well enough from 1994 to 1997.
Trouble began when you started to use the factory in ways not approved by your father. You made renovations that suited you, but displeased him. They included making part of the factory into a dwelling. You started up businesses at the factory. Your father made you close them down. Your father tried to get you to pay a much greater amount by way of rent. Then he took steps to get you out. That led to communications between the two of you breaking down altogether.
In November 1999, your father went to court and got an intervention order against you. In February 2000, he got a court order for you to get out of the factory. You applied for and won a stay of one month. You then had until Friday 17 March to get out.
On Tuesday 14 March 2000 about 1 p.m., you were at the factory as your father drove past. You attracted his attention and said that you wanted to talk with him. Your father invited you back to his home. He suggested you might be able to work something out. You went to negotiate.
At his home, you started talking. The talking turned to arguing – and it got heated. Your father told you to get out of his house. He started to push you. He tried to punch you. You blocked his punches. You started hitting him. You were too powerful for him. For a time, you tied his hands behind his back. After you untied him, your father said he would call the police and went for the phone. That really caused you to lose control. With your hands and no weapon, you hit him hard and often to his head and elsewhere on his body. You then left him unconscious. He died of the injuries you caused in that final attack.
I am satisfied that the jury found that you were provoked into attacking him as you did. Your account to the police played down the ferocity of the final attack. Leaving your father unconscious as you did was callous. An appraisal of that callous attitude has to be made in the context of all that had gone before. That included the times you had left him unconscious from his drinking.
This is still a serious example of manslaughter.
I have read the victim impact statement made by the brother of the deceased. As is intended to be the case, such a statement has served to reinforce the need to bring a sense of balance into the sentencing process.
You are 45 years of age, having been born in August 1956. Your childhood was marred by your father’s problems with alcohol and otherwise which led to the separation of your parents, and to your being a ward of the state for a time.
Your schooling has been limited. Your literacy skills are limited. Your work history has been steady enough, given your limited education and skills training. Your relationships history has scarcely been encouraging.
You have many prior convictions. Your court appearances extend from January 1974 to January 2000. You have more than once been dealt with for driving offences, for theft or receiving, and for drug possession and trafficking. You have been sentenced mainly by way of fine. In 1992, you were sentence to a term of 3 years in prison. There are no convictions for crimes of violence.
I have read the report of Mr Joblin. Of concern to me is what he says as to your involvement with alcohol and illegal drugs, which ties in with your convictions.
I have taken account of his opinions as to a number of matters. He believes that it was more likely confusion, occasioning frustration and disappointment, rather than aggression that was the main feature of your last contact with your father. He believes that there are counter-indications of a disposition for aggression. He has a concern as to the consequences of a low level of intelligence, a concreteness in thought processes, and a proneness for depression and anxiety.
In the light of aspects of evidence at the trial and what emerges from Mr Joblin’s report, I accept that there is genuine remorse.
I have weighed in your favour that you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter before the trial.
I have noted that, through Mr McIvor, you have stated that you have abandoned any claim you might have to any part of your father’s estate.
Your pre-sentence detention amounts to 547 days as at today, 13 September 2001. I direct that that figure be entered in the court records.
I sentence you to imprisonment for eight years. I fix a non-parole period of six years.
0
0
0