R v Worthy (Ruling on Factual Matters) - [2017] VSC 808

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0160

THE QUEEN

SAMUEL WORTHY

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	7, 8, 9, 11 August 2017
DATE OF RULING:	3 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Worthy (Ruling on Factual Matters)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 808

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Guilty plea – Contested facts as to role of offender – Whether Crown case that offender planned, promoted and prepared for crime and wielded machete capable of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Whether there is mitigation established on offender’s account of diminished role in the events.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Bayles	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Samuel Worthy appears before the court having pleaded guilty to the murder of Joshua Kane at Macarthur on 23 January 2016. The offence was a joint crime committed with Stuart Campbell and Lanie Snell. Campbell and Snell have already pleaded guilty and have been sentenced for the same murder.

Campbell entered his plea before Lasry J on 20 April 2017 at the Supreme Court sitting in Melbourne. On 1 May 2017, a plea hearing was conducted on behalf of Campbell. On that date, Campbell gave an undertaking to give evidence in accordance with a police statement he had made on 7 April 2017 in which he had outlined how the deceased, Joshua Kane, met his death, and the roles of each of the three accused in carrying out the murder. Campbell was sentenced on 3 May 2017.

The trial of Snell and Worthy was to commence on 8 May 2017, but ultimately both Snell and Worthy entered pleas of guilty on what was to be the first day of trial.

Snell’s plea hearing took place before Lasry J on 5 June 2017 and she was sentenced on 30 June 2017. Worthy, at the time of indicating his willingness to plead guilty and prior to arraignment, did not accept the Crown opening as to the factual background to the charge, although he did accept criminal complicity in the murder. The plea hearing for Worthy was set down for a contested plea before me at Warrnambool commencing 7 August 2017.

At the request of the parties, a view of the crime scene was conducted on 7 August 2017 at Lake Surprise in Mt Eccles National Park. The court viewed the locations relevant to the versions given by Campbell in his police interview and police statement, and Worthy in his record of interview. The view extended to include observing the locations of the entrance to the Mt Eccles National Park, the location of the ranger’s hut, the carpark near the viewing platform that overlooks Lake Surprise, including the approximate position where Snell’s car was said to have been parked, an area where there was bleaching on the balcony ledge, the location of where a bucket…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Worthy (Ruling on Factual Matters) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] VSC 808
Decision Date: 3 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the accused, Worthy, who had entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder. The dispute centred on the contested facts regarding the extent of Worthy's involvement in the crime. The Crown alleged that Worthy had not only participated in the murder but had also played a significant role in planning, promoting, and preparing for the crime, as well as wielding a machete during the incident. Worthy, however, argued that his role was diminished, and his account of events suggested a lesser involvement.

The court was required to determine whether the Crown had proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Worthy had planned, promoted, and prepared for the crime, and that he had wielded a machete. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was any mitigation based on Worthy's account of his diminished role in the events leading to the murder. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, including witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the accused's statements.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully weighed the evidence presented. It found that the Crown had successfully demonstrated that Worthy had indeed played a significant role in the planning and preparation of the crime and had wielded a machete. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Crown's case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding mitigation, the court noted that while Worthy had argued for a diminished role, the evidence did not sufficiently support this claim to warrant a reduction in his culpability.

The court's ruling established that Worthy's involvement in the crime was as alleged by the Crown, and there was no mitigation to reduce his culpability based on his account of events. The final orders of the court confirmed the guilty plea and outlined the sentencing process, which would take into account the findings on the contested factual matters.

Orders