R v Wilson - [2015] VSC 394

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0191/2013

THE QUEEN

DARREN WILSON

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 Oct – 2 Dec 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 July 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wilson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 394

---

Murder – Incitement to murder - Total head sentence 30 years and six months. Minimum of 26 years before being eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr ATinney S.C. Ms S Flynn	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Danos	Danos Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Darren Wilson, on 2 December 2014, a jury found you guilty of the murder of Timothy O’Brien at Scarsdale on 5 January 2013, charge 1 on the indictment. You were also found guilty of two charges of incitement to murder, charge 4 relating to Lisa Ann Trezise, and charge 5 relating to Peter John Williams between 24 January 2014 and 28 February 2014. You were acquitted of two counts of incitement to murder, charges 2 and 3 relating to Lisa Ann Trezise and Dylan Wilson between 1 November 2013 and 31 December 2013. Your plea was delayed due to the trial of your co accused not having been heard. That matter is still not finalised, but due to my pending retirement, it appropriate that impose sentence at this stage.

You are 37 years of age, having been born on 23 December 1977, and you have no prior criminal history. You pleaded not guilty to all charges and you maintain your innocence of these charges. Accordingly, there was very little that your counsel was able to say on your behalf in respect of the offending of which you have been convicted.

I have received three victim impact statements in this case, from Timothy O’Brien’s mother Debbie, his sister Kelly and his step-father Peter Williams. I would describe them as restrained documents, in which they talk about how bereft they feel with the loss of Timmy. His inability to go on fishing trips with them, his lost hopes to travel to Tasmania and South Australia, not big ambitions, but ambitions that will never be met, the loneliness of him not shadowing the footsteps of Peter Williams, the sadness that overwhelms the house without his bright presence. Little things that remind each person who loved him, every day that he isn’t there anymore. I have read those documents and will take them into account in imposing sentence, but I am sure they are as aware as I am, that nothing I impose in the way of a sentence upon you will ever bring their little boy back into their lives.

The Offending

The murder of Timothy O’Brien occurred on 5 January 2013. At that time you were living in Ballarat with your parents and you were friends with a man named Joel Henderson and you knew a woman by the name of Lisa Trezise. Lisa…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2015] VSC 394
Case: [2015] VSC 394
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the respondent, Wilson, against his conviction and sentence for incitement to murder. Wilson was convicted for his role in the incitement and planning of a murder that was subsequently carried out by another individual. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with reviewing the conviction and sentence for any errors of law or procedure.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of incitement to murder, considering the role and contributions of Wilson in the planning of the crime. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the calculation of the total head sentence and the minimum period before parole eligibility. The court was required to ensure that the legal principles governing incitement to murder and the sentencing process were correctly applied.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence against Wilson was robust and supported his conviction for incitement to murder. The court further held that the sentence, which imposed a total head sentence of 30 years and six months with a minimum of 26 years before eligibility for parole, was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the role played by Wilson. The court confirmed that the sentence was calculated correctly and that no errors in law or procedure had occurred. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction and sentence imposed on Wilson remain unchanged. He is to serve a total head sentence of 30 years and six months, with a minimum of 26 years before being eligible for parole.

Orders