CRIMINAL LAW — Conviction — Appeal — Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act — Causation — Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory — Causation — Whether evidence capable of establishing a causal connection between injuries suffered in assault and deceased’s later cardiac arrest and death — Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Director’s appeal — Manslaughter — Whether sentence of 4 years with non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months manifestly inadequate — Female respondent relatively youthful having care of infant in prison — Sentence lenient but not manifestly inadequate — Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant/Respondent
Mr C Mylonas
Paul Vale Criminal Law
For the Crown
Mr D Trapnell QC with Ms S Coombs
Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
ASHLEY JA OSBORN JA PRIEST JA:
Introduction
At about 2.45am on 30 January 2014, Kristy Robb (for convenience, ‘the applicant’[1]) and Gino Rachele went to a property occupied by Alan Matthews in Noble Park. Both assaulted him there. Fewer than ten minutes after their arrival, at 2.53am, Mr Matthews telephoned ‘000’. He told the emergency services operator that he had been ‘bashed by a woman and a bloke’. Less than an hour later, at 3.36am, police found him dead, half in and half out of the shower — with the water running — in the main premises of the property. Medical evidence was that Mr Matthews had suffered cardiac arrest as a consequence of the stress of the assaults (and potentially from blood loss). Mr Matthews was aged 69 years when he died.[2]
[1]She is, of course, the respondent to the Director’s appeal.
[2]He was born on 21 January 1945.
On 25 September 2015, following a trial in the Supreme Court, a jury convicted the applicant of manslaughter.[3] The trial judge sentenced her on 28 October 2015 to be imprisoned for four years, and imposed a non-parole period of two years and six months.
[3]Manslaughter is a common law offence. By virtue of s 5 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
Gino Rachele gave evidence for the prosecution in the trial. He had pleaded guilty on 3 September 2015 to recklessly causing injury and false imprisonment. The trial judge sentenced him to a community correction order for one year, with conditions that he perform 150 hours of community work; undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse and alcohol dependency; and undergo evaluation and receive treatment for mental health.[4]
[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 Robb v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Robb v The Queen [2016] VSCA 125
Case
[2016] VSCA 125
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Robb v The Queen involved the respondent appealing against both his conviction and the sentence imposed on him. The respondent was convicted of manslaughter following an assault on a woman that resulted in her death. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence was capable of establishing a causal connection between the injuries suffered in the assault and the deceased’s later cardiac arrest and death. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.
The court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a causal link between the respondent's actions and the deceased's death. The respondent argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the evidence did not establish a causal connection. The court examined the medical evidence and found that it was sufficient to establish that the injuries sustained during the assault contributed to the deceased's cardiac arrest and subsequent death. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court assessed whether the sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was manifestly inadequate. The court acknowledged the leniency of the sentence but found it was not manifestly inadequate, considering the respondent's age and the fact that he was a carer for an infant in prison.
The High Court held that the evidence was capable of establishing the requisite causal connection between the injuries and the death, and thus dismissed the appeal against conviction. In respect to the sentence, the court found that while the sentence was lenient, it was not manifestly inadequate, and therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence as well. The decision of the lower court was upheld in its entirety.