R v Wordie - [2003] VSCA 107

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No.139 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
ROBERT JOHN WORDIE

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., VINCENT, J.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 August 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 107

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Appeal on ground of manifest excess – Intentionally causing serious injury – Stabbing of female partner – Attempted aggravated burglary of female victim's premises – Harassing of witness being female victim – Appellant in borderline range of intelligence and with deleterious medical conditions - Relevance of aboriginality – Sentences not excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G.J.C. Silbert	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr G.J. Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Cummins, A.J.A. in draft form. I concur in the conclusions his Honour has reached and I would subscribe to his reasons therefore.

VINCENT, J.A.:

I agree with the disposition of this matter as proposed by Cummins, A.J.A. I do so for the reasons advanced by him in his judgment which I have had the opportunity of reading in draft form.

CUMMINS, A.J.A.:

This is an appeal against sentence imposed upon the appellant following a plea of guilty by him to one count of intentionally causing serious injury (Count One) and one count of attempted aggravated burglary (Count Two). The victim of the first offence was Sandra Harrison, aged 44 years, with whom the appellant had a relationship. The offence occurred at North Fitzroy on 22 November 2000, when the appellant stabbed Ms Harrison a number of times to her chest and other parts. Count Two occurred at Collingwood on 7 July 2001 when the appellant (having been charged with Count One and having been released upon bail a term of which was that he not contact prosecution witnesses) went to the home of Ms Harrison and in an attempt to gain access thereto smashed a window. The appellant had numerous prior convictions. On Count One the appellant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment. On Count Two he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. A summary offence (harassing a witness, being the victim Ms Harrison, on 16 December 2000) was also dealt with at the same hearing by the learned sentencing Judge. The appellant pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for that offence. His Honour directed that one year of the sentence imposed upon Count Two and all of the sentence imposed upon the summary charge be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon Count One, making

a total effective sentence of 9 years 3 months' imprisonment. The appellant was directed to serve a minimum term of 5 years 9 months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.

By notice filed 11 June 2002 application for leave to appeal was made on the following grounds:
(1) That the sentence was manifestly excessive in…

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 Wordie

Details

AGLC: R v Wordie [2003] VSCA 107
Case: [2003] VSCA 107
Decision Date: 13 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wordie, the appellant was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to his female partner, as well as for the attempted aggravated burglary of the victim's premises and harassing the victim, who was also a witness. The case was heard in the appellate court where the appellant sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appellant contended that his borderline range of intelligence, deleterious medical conditions, and aboriginality were factors that should have been considered more favourably by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors of the appellant's borderline range of intelligence, deleterious medical conditions, and aboriginality, and that these factors should have warranted a lesser sentence. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had taken into account all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had considered the appellant's borderline range of intelligence, deleterious medical conditions, and aboriginality, and had given them appropriate weight in the sentencing process. The court also noted that the appellant's criminal conduct was of a serious nature, involving violence against a female partner and an attempt to commit aggravated burglary. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the appellant's offending and was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The appellant remained subject to the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders