R v Worthy (Sentence) - [2018] VSC 12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0160

THE QUEEN
v
SAMUEL WORTHY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	7, 8, 9, 11 August 2017, 23 January 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 November 2017 (ruling) and 30 January 2018 (sentence)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Worthy (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 12

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Guilty plea – Sentence following contested plea – Three friends involved in attack with machete against fourth friend – Key role in the joint offence – Absence of remorse – Youth – Consideration of parity with older offender – Sentenced to 20 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years.

---

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, you have 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 been sentenced for the murder.

Your co-offender Campbell entered his plea before Lasry J on 20 April 2017 at the Supreme Court sitting in Melbourne. The trial of Snell and yourself was to commence on 8 May 2017, but ultimately each of you pleaded guilty on what was to be the first day of trial.

Campbell’s plea hearing was conducted on 1 May 2017. 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 you in carrying out the murder. Campbell was sentenced on 3 May 2017.[1] He received a lesser sentence because of his offer to assist the Crown in accordance with the statement he had made.
[1]R v Campbell [2017] VSC 227R.

Snell’s plea hearing took place before Lasry J on 5 June 2017 and she was sentenced on 30 June 2017.[2]
[2]R v Snell [2017] VSC 394.

Despite being willing to plead guilty to murder on the basis of the principles of criminal complicity, you disputed the Crown opening as to the factual circumstances of the murder. A contested plea hearing was commenced before me at Warrnambool, on 7 August 2017.

I have already delivered a ruling on the factual matters in dispute between yourself and the Crown.[3] This ruling was handed down in advance of the further plea hearing so as to enable further submissions and a psychological report to be provided on your behalf in response to my factual findings. In that ruling I found that you were involved in planning, promoting and preparing for the crime and physically attacking the deceased with the machete. Some of what I say today will involve repetition of matters included in my…

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 Worthy (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Worthy (Sentence) [2018] VSC 12
Case: [2018] VSC 12
Decision Date: 3 November 2017 (ruling) and 30 January 2018 (sentence)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Worthy involved a young man who, along with two other friends, had attacked a fourth individual with a machete, resulting in his death. Worthy pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and, following a contested plea, was sentenced by the court. The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for Worthy, considering his role in the crime, his lack of remorse, his youth, and the need to ensure parity with older offenders who commit similar offences.

The court needed to balance these factors against the severity of the crime and the culpability of the offender. The court found that Worthy played a significant role in the joint offence, and his lack of remorse was a concerning factor. However, his youth was considered as a mitigating factor. In weighing these considerations, the court determined that an appropriate sentence was one that reflected the gravity of the crime while also taking into account Worthy's age and potential for rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the principle of parity with older offenders, ensuring that Worthy's sentence was commensurate with the punishment that might be imposed on an older individual for a similar crime. The court concluded that a sentence of 20 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years, was appropriate. This sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offence, while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation given Worthy's age and potential for reform.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the sentencing.

Orders