R v Woodburn - [2002] VSC 72

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1509 of 2000

THE QUEEN

KIRSTIE ANNE WOODBURN

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura (15 January 2002), Melbourne – Video link to Mildura (22 March 2002)
DATE OF HEARING:	15 January 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 March 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Woodburn
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 72

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Unlawful and dangerous act - Youthful offender – Youth training order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. A. Moore	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. P. Jones	Ryan, Maloney & Anderson

HIS HONOUR:

Kirstie Anne Woodburn, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter arising out of the death of Michelle Anne Clarke in Mildura on 24 September 2000. You had originally been charged with murder but, quite properly, having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Crown has accepted your plea of guilty to manslaughter for which offence it is now my duty to sentence you according to law.

You were born on 21 September 1982 so that at the time you committed this offence you were just a few days past your eighteenth birthday. You were unemployed, aimless, bored and apparently devoid of any worthwhile ambition or prospect of realistic advancement in life. Not surprisingly this existence had been preceded by an unsatisfactory school record, conflict with your parents and other authority figures and the gradual development of a generally anti-social attitude, reflected in one brush with the law earlier in the year 2000 involving drunkenness, theft of a motor vehicle and damage to property which resulted in your being placed on a community based order which you subsequently breached.

The life which you have led, as I have described it, lacked any form of intellectual, social or recreational stimulation. For recreation you turned to drugs: mainly alcohol in the form of cheap white cask wine. It seems that most of your waking hours were spent with other young people of similar disposition drinking and aimlessly moving from one site to another in the Mildura area.

At the time of this offence you were in receipt of social security payments, associated with which was assistance provided by the social welfare agency Centacare which sought to assist you with employment or training if you were prepared to co-operate in this regard. Your Centacare youth worker described your situation immediately prior to this offence as one which made you very unhappy. You hated the community work to which you had been sentenced in respect of the offence to which I have referred. You were tired of always being involved in fighting and wanted to start afresh somewhere else.

It appears that although you realised the futility and hopelessness of your then existence you had neither the capacity nor, indeed, the necessary motivation to do anything about it. You described to your youth worker a conflict which you and…

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 Woodburn

Details

AGLC: R v Woodburn [2002] VSC 72
Case: [2002] VSC 72
Decision Date: 22 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Woodburn, the court considered the sentencing of a youthful offender convicted of manslaughter through an unlawful and dangerous act. The defendant, who had a history of prior convictions, was brought before the court to determine an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, considering his age, the nature of the offence, and the need for both punishment and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the potential for rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's young age and prior criminal history. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing for manslaughter and the potential for imposing a youth training order, which would focus on rehabilitation rather than mere punishment.

The court determined that, while the offence was serious, the defendant's age and potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court concluded that a youth training order was appropriate, as it would provide the defendant with the opportunity to address the underlying issues contributing to his criminal behaviour. The court found that a sentence that included both punishment and rehabilitation would best serve the interests of justice and society. The court emphasised the importance of considering the defendant's age and potential for reform in the sentencing process.

The court ordered that the defendant be subject to a youth training order for a period of two years, with specific conditions aimed at rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The order included mandatory participation in educational and vocational training programs, regular reporting to a probation officer, and compliance with any other conditions deemed necessary by the court. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing punishment with the potential for rehabilitation in sentencing youthful offenders.

Orders