R v Wordie - [2002] VSC 202

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1462 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ROBERT JOHN WORDIE

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 November 2001, 8 February 2002, 24 May 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 May 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wordie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 202

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Intentionally cause serious injury - Aggravating factor: conduct after plea hearing – Summary offence s 359AA Crimes Act 1958

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A J Tinney	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D L Brustman	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Robert John Wordie, on 20 November 2001 you pleaded guilty in this Court to one count of intentionally causing serious injury, one count of attempted aggravated burglary and a charge of harassment of a witness contrary to s 52A Summary Offences Act 1966. You having consented to my dealing with the last of these charges, despite its being a summary offence, it is now my duty to sentence you in respect of these three matters according to law. The first two of these offences each carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment; the third a fine of $1,200 or imprisonment for 12 months.

For some months prior to 22 November 2000 you had been involved in a relationship with the victim of these offences, Sandra Lee Harrison. The relationship was marked by violence by you towards Ms Harrison, almost always when you were affected by alcohol. This behaviour was not surprisingly a cause of conflict in the relationship causing separations between you on a number of occasions. These separations were generally ended by your apologising for your behaviour. This pattern is a well known and recognisable feature of domestic violence. Many murders are committed in exactly these circumstances.

Some time prior to 22 November 2000 Ms Harrison told you that if your behaviour towards her continued in the way that it had, the relationship would be broken off permanently. She suggested that you go away for a while, as a result of which suggestion you planned a trip to Warrnambool. This trip was one of the topics of conversation between you on the morning of 22 November when you went to her home in Collingwood.

At about 11.00 am on that morning you and Ms Harrison commenced to drink beer at her home, which drinking session continued through out the rest of that day. At some time fairly late in the day Ms Harrison became aware that there was a hunting knife in the pocket of your jacket. She asked you what you were going to do with it and you answered with words to the effect "I'm going to kill some bastard". When she asked you who you intended to kill you said: "never mind, I don't know".

At about 5.30 pm you and Ms Harrison left her home and went to the home of…

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 [2002] VSC 202
Case: [2002] VSC 202
Decision Date: 28 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wordie involved the defendant, Wordie, who was prosecuted for a summary offence under section 359AA of the Crimes Act 1958 for intentionally causing serious injury to a police officer. The dispute arose following a violent incident that occurred during an arrest. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Wordie, considering the nature of the offence and any relevant aggravating factors.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate sentencing principles for the offence and whether the conduct of the defendant post the plea hearing constituted an aggravating factor. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, which involved intentional harm inflicted on a police officer in the course of their duty, as well as the impact of the defendant's actions following the plea hearing.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted the seriousness of intentionally causing harm to a police officer and emphasised the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of such conduct. The court found that Wordie's conduct after the plea hearing, which included further threatening behaviour, warranted consideration as an aggravating factor. The court concluded that the sentence should adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the additional aggravating circumstances. The final orders included a custodial sentence for Wordie, reflecting the court's assessment of the offence's severity and the aggravating factors.

Orders