R v White - [2004] VSC 428

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1430 of 2004

THE QUEEN

SHERMAN CALVIN WHITE

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 October 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sherman Calvin White
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 428

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Intentionally causing serious injury — repeatedly struck sister on head with object — plea of guilty and other mitigating circumstances — sentence of four years — non-parole period of three years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Southey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Lincoln	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Sherman Calvin White, you have pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury. The maximum penalty for this crime is 20 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has recently emphasised the seriousness of this offence and the significance of the very substantial maximum term of imprisonment which Parliament has provided for in relation to it.[1]
[1]DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153, esp at [10] and DPP v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154, esp at [21].

You were charged with alternative counts of attempted murder and intentionally causing serious injury. At the final directions hearing, your counsel foreshadowed an intention to plead guilty to the charge of intentionally causing serious injury. At trial you did so. You pleaded not guilty to the charge of attempted murder and were in due course found not guilty on that charge by the jury. Consequent upon your plea, the jury delivered a verdict of guilty on the charge of intentionally causing serious injury. I was informed by counsel for the Crown that an offer to plead guilty to the charge of intentionally causing serious injury was made and rejected by the Crown in May of this year.

I am mindful of the fact that while I must form my own view of the facts and the seriousness of the offence, that view must not conflict with the verdict of the jury.[2]
[2]R v Harris [1961] VR 236 at 237 and R v Kane [1974] VR 759 at 762.

The victim of the attack that was the foundation for the charge was your sister, Susan Mae French. In 2003 your sister, Mrs French, and your elderly mother, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, were living in Chelsea in Melbourne, Australia. Prior to June 2003 you were a resident of Florida in the United States of America. Your sister had been living in Australia for some years and had brought your elderly mother to Australia to live with her. In early June 2003 you visited them and stayed with them at their house in Chelsea. On 4 June 2003 you attacked your sister. You struck her to the head and neck repeatedly with an object which, despite extensive searches, has never been recovered.

In her evidence your sister described…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2004] VSC 428
Case: [2004] VSC 428
Decision Date: 25 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to charges stemming from an incident where he repeatedly struck his sister on the head with an object, causing her serious injuries. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for the appellant's actions, particularly given his guilty plea and other mitigating circumstances presented. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant's actions, considering the severity of the injuries inflicted, his guilty plea, and other mitigating factors. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and other circumstances that might warrant a lesser sentence. The appellant's legal team argued for a lesser sentence, highlighting his guilty plea and other mitigating factors, while the prosecution argued for a more severe sentence due to the gravity of the injuries inflicted.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles of sentencing for intentionally causing serious injury. It recognised the appellant's guilty plea and other mitigating factors but emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victim. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of four years in prison was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years. This decision reflected the need to balance punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of four years imprisonment for the appellant, with a non-parole period of three years. This decision acknowledged the appellant's guilty plea and other mitigating circumstances but also recognised the need to impose a sentence that appropriately reflects the seriousness of the crime and the harm caused to the victim.

Orders