R v Willis - [2015] VSC 410

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT BALLARAT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0146

THE QUEEN

JESSE WILLIS

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN JA
WHERE HELD:	Ballarat
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Willis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 410

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Accused shot deceased in back of the head with a cut-back rifle – Accused claimed self-defence – Narrative of accused inconsistent with jury verdict – Basis of facts upon which sentence passed – Attempted concealment of body of deceased after killing – Circumstances of accused – Accused a heavy drug user at time of offending – Sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with 20 year non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Williams with Mr P Smallwood	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Jesse Willis you have been convicted by a jury of 12 of the murder of Ricky Ganly at Avoca on 29 April 2013.

In 2013, you were an unemployed man severely addicted to drugs and, in particular, heroin and methamphetamine (or ‘ice’). At some point prior to April 2013, you stole three firearms from your grandmother’s house in Avoca. You then cut back the barrel and stock of a single shot .22 rifle, producing, in effect, a long pistol. So adapted, it had no obvious use other than a criminal one but no doubt from your point of view it was potentially tradeable within the drug culture in which you had to make deals to meet your addiction.

On 28 April 2013, you went with a dealer, Gordon Skadric, to a house in North Sunshine to obtain drugs. Mr Ganly was also at that premises. You obtained speed or ice at the house and then went to Ted’s Café in Rockbank before heading off to Avoca in convoy with Mr Ganly, each driving your own car. It is apparent that your purpose in doing so was somehow to facilitate obtaining further drugs from Mr Ganly and you maintain that Mr Ganly hoped to obtain a shotgun from you at Avoca.

On arriving at Avoca you used drugs together.

In statements to police you maintain that at Avoca Mr Ganly stood over you seeking production of a gun and cut your forearm with scissors and your hand with a knife.

At some point you obtained the cut-back .22 rifle from the house of your friend Mr Richard Peters. Before doing so, Mr Peters offered to confront Mr Ganly with you but you refused his offer.

After leaving Mr Peters’ house, you and Mr Ganly drove in your cars to a point on the Bealiba Road near Mills Road where you stopped. A final confrontation then occurred, which you say was precipitated by a threat from Mr Ganly arising out of expressions of strong dissatisfaction with the cut-back weapon after you…

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 Willis

Details

AGLC: R v Willis [2015] VSC 410
Case: [2015] VSC 410
Decision Date: 13 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Willis, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a 20-year non-parole period. The deceased was shot in the back of the head with a cut-back rifle. The appellant claimed self-defence, but the jury rejected this defence, finding that the appellant had shot the deceased in an unprovoked attack. The case before the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to assess the basis of the facts upon which the sentence was passed, particularly in light of the appellant’s inconsistent narrative and the rejected self-defence claim. Additionally, the court considered the appellant’s attempted concealment of the deceased’s body and his status as a heavy drug user at the time of the offence. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the trial judge’s consideration of factors that did not form part of the basis of facts accepted by the jury.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had properly considered the appellant’s criminal history, his drug use at the time of the offence, and his attempt to conceal the deceased’s body. The court found that these factors were relevant to the appellant’s culpability and the seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the court noted that the jury’s rejection of the self-defence claim did not preclude the trial judge from considering the appellant’s inconsistent narrative and other mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the appellant’s culpability, and was therefore not manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against sentence. The court upheld the trial judge’s assessment of the appellant’s culpability and the seriousness of the offence, and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The appellant’s conviction for murder and the 24-year sentence with a 20-year non-parole period were affirmed.

Orders