Criminal Law - Sentence - Intentionally causing serious injury - In fixing penalty for this offence general deterrence will normally outweigh youth and prospects of rehabilitation.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr. C.J. Ryan
P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant
Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C.
Balmer & Associates
WINNEKE, A.C.J. (delivering the judgment of the Court):
The applicant, David Wright, who is now aged 24, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 27 April 1998 to one count of intentionally causing serious injury. He was sentenced on 27 April 1998 to a term of imprisonment of two-and-a-half years and was ordered by the sentencing judge to serve a minimum term of 15 months before becoming eligible for parole. He admitted 23 previous convictions from six court appearances dating from 1989. Many of those prior convictions were for offences that can be broadly described as street offences, and many of them would appear to have been influenced by consumption of alcohol. They do include, however, offences of assault and one offence of intentionally causing injury, but we note that none of the offences resulted in a gaol term.
The offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty occurred on 8 November 1996 at the Burnley railway station. The facts of the offence have been fully and, it would seem, accurately set out in the remarks of the learned sentencing judge; we adopt those remarks and we do not need to repeat them here. It was conceded on the plea that the applicant's behaviour was vicious, unprovoked and cowardly. It was committed upon a 32-year-old man unknown to the applicant and was committed in company with two other men. The victim apparently lived in the United States of America and had come to Melbourne for his sister's wedding - a wedding he missed because of the injuries inflicted upon him by the applicant and his companions. There is no doubt that the applicant was drunk at the time when these injuries were inflicted, but that is an explanation and is not an excuse. Having subdued the victim, the applicant joined with the others in kicking and stomping on the victim's head. This appears to be a familiar method of inflicting serious injury in modern times, but it ought to be understood by those who wish to engage in it that it is conduct which is regarded by the courts as abhorrent and worthy, as the judge here pointed out, of condign punishment, which will normally take the form of an immediate custodial sentence. It is conduct which, of course, is capable of inflicting serious damage, particularly if aimed at the head of the prostrate victim, as…
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 Wright
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Wright [1998] VSCA 84
Case
[1998] VSCA 84
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Wright, the respondent was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to the complainant. The dispute centred on the appropriate penalty for this offence, with the prosecution arguing for a substantial sentence to serve as a deterrent, while the defence urged for a lighter penalty considering the respondent's youth and potential for rehabilitation. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The legal issues before the court involved the balance between the principles of general deterrence and the considerations of youth and rehabilitation when determining a penalty. The court needed to weigh the severity of the offence against the respondent's age and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The prosecution contended that the gravity of the crime warranted a severe penalty to act as a deterrent, while the defence argued for a lighter sentence that would offer the respondent a chance to reform.
The court considered the nature and impact of the offence, noting that intentionally causing serious injury was a grave matter that warranted a significant penalty. The court recognised the importance of general deterrence in preventing similar offences in the future. However, the court also acknowledged the respondent's youth and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found that, in this instance, the need for general deterrence outweighed the considerations of youth and rehabilitation. The court imposed a substantial penalty, emphasising the gravity of the offence and the importance of sending a strong message to deter others from committing similar acts.
The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The court believed this sentence appropriately balanced the need for general deterrence with the respondent's youth and potential for rehabilitation.