R v Wilson - [2004] VSC 468

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1433 of 2004

THE QUEEN

THOMAS WILSON

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 July 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wilson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 468

SENTENCE – Making Threat to Kill – Severe and chronic mental illness – Anti-social personality – Suitability for Community Based Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Gamble	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	Paul Vale & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Wilson, you have pleaded guilty to one count of making a threat to kill and to two summary charges of using a telecommunications service to make menaces. Through your counsel you have consented to this court hearing and determining the summary charges.

All of these offences were committed during a series of telephone calls you made on the evening of Monday, 8 December 2003. The victim and recipient of each of these calls was John Smallwood. On each occasion you used your mobile phone to call his home address. Mr Smallwood lived at that address with his wife and children. You knew Mr Smallwood to be a County Court judge at the time of making these calls.

Your motivation for making the calls, however, appears to have been that you had been the victim in an incident which occurred many years previously, in about 1995. At that time you went by the name Graham Reid. His Honour, appearing as defence counsel in the Supreme Court trial, cross-examined you. His Honour’s client was charged with attempted murder, but was acquitted after the jury accepted a defence of self-defence.

The first phone contact you made appears to have been a message which you left on his Honour’s answering machine two to three weeks prior to 8 December 2003. This call is not the subject of any charge. His Honour and his wife listened to the message. In the message you said:

“Hello, sir – John - Mr Smallwood – I don’t know what to call you. You’ve helped me before and I need you to help me again. My name is Tom Wilson. My phone number is 0400 259 847. You will know who I am.”

You also said that you wanted the name of a doctor from a registration number that you had. You said that you could not get the number from the authorities and you needed it for your survival. You said you needed the assistance of people like Mr Smallwood and that you also needed information regarding registration numbers in Newlands Road, North Coburg. You actually lived in this road and the number that you left his Honour was your own number. You concluded the message by asking for your call to be returned.

The details of the caller were noted by his Honour, but the message itself was erased. His Honour never…

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 [2004] VSC 468
Case: [2004] VSC 468
Decision Date: 23 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Wilson, who had been charged with making a threat to kill. Wilson had a history of severe and chronic mental illness and anti-social personality disorder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Wilson, taking into account his mental health and personality disorders. The prosecution argued for a custodial sentence, while the defence advocated for a community-based order.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether Wilson's mental health and personality disorders made him unsuitable for a community-based order, and if so, what the appropriate custodial sentence should be. The court needed to consider the relevant legislation, case law, and the principles of sentencing for such offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that Wilson's severe and chronic mental illness and anti-social personality disorder were significant factors to consider in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that Wilson's mental health issues did not necessarily make him unsuitable for a community-based order, but rather required careful consideration of the specific circumstances and the availability of appropriate support and treatment. The court ultimately determined that a community-based order was suitable for Wilson, provided that it included appropriate support and treatment to address his mental health and personality disorders. The court ordered a three-year community-based order, including mandatory mental health treatment and supervision.

Orders