Legal Research
Cases
St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson

St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson

Case [2019] VSC 57 15 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2017 04545
S CI 2017 04546

MAREE ELIZABETH ST CLAIR and PAUL DAVID HOLMES	Applicants
v
IAN FRANCIS JAMIESON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 June 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 57

---

CRIMES COMPENSATION — applications by adult siblings following murder of mother, step-father and brother — assessment of compensation for pain and suffering resulting from crimes — applicable principles — role of crimes compensation in vindicating dignity and affording reparation to victims of crime — connection between crimes compensation and other elements of criminal justice system that ensure human rights of victims of crime —whether offender’s financial circumstances should be taken into account — whether extension of time in which to make applications should be granted — applicable principles — ‘injury’, ‘pain and suffering’ —Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 85B–H.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicants	Mr J Amin	Cahills Barristers & Solicitors
For the respondent	Mr D McCulloch (as McKenzie Friend)

HIS HONOUR:

Maree St Clair and her brother Paul Holmes lost three beloved members of their immediate family to murders carried out in shocking circumstances by Ian Jamieson on 22 October 2014. Those family members were Mary Lockhart, her husband Peter Lockhart and her son Gregory Holmes. Mary was Maree and Paul’s mother. Peter was their stepfather. Gregory was their only brother, one of five children, and the youngest. Maree and Paul now make application for crimes compensation against Mr Jamieson under the provisions of div 2 of pt 4 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’).

After pleading guilty to three charges of murder, Mr Jamieson, then aged 65 years, was sentenced in 2016 to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years.[1] He was refused leave to change his plea.[2] An appeal against conviction on the charge relating to Gregory was dismissed in 2017 by the Court of Appeal.[3] Mr Jamieson will probably spend the rest of his life in prison where he might attain a degree of rehabilitation. At the hearing of the application, Mr Jamieson’s McKenzie Friend informed the court on his behalf, and in his presence, that he wanted to express remorse and contrition for what he had done and that any overt lack of such expression at an earlier stage was due to his psychiatric/psychological condition at the time.
[1]DPP v Jamieson [2016] VSC 407 (22 July 2016) (Hollingworth J).
[2]DPP v Jamieson (Ruling) [2016] VSC 406 (22 July 2016) (Hollingworth J).
[3]Jamieson v The Queen [2017] VSCA 140 (16 June 2017) (Ashley, Osborn and Santamaria JJA).

Maree was born in 1960 and is presently aged 59 years. She is the eldest of the five children. Her mother Mary was aged 75 years when she died. Paul was born in 1961 and is presently…

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 St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson

Details

AGLC: St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson [2019] VSC 57
Case: [2019] VSC 57
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson involved two adult siblings who sought compensation for the pain and suffering resulting from the murders of their mother, step-father, and brother. The dispute was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The siblings argued that the current compensation framework did not adequately reflect the gravity of their losses and sought a reevaluation of the principles guiding the assessment of pain and suffering in crimes compensation applications.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included the applicability of the principles guiding the assessment of pain and suffering in the context of crimes compensation, the role of such compensation in vindicating the dignity and providing reparation to victims of crime, and the connection between crimes compensation and other elements of the criminal justice system that ensure the human rights of victims of crime. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the offender’s financial circumstances should be taken into account in determining the compensation, as well as whether an extension of time in which to make the applications should be granted.

The court examined the principles set out in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and noted the importance of crimes compensation in affording reparation and vindicating the dignity of victims of crime. It acknowledged the limitations of monetary compensation but recognised its role in providing some form of recognition and solace to victims. The court held that the offender’s financial circumstances were not relevant to the assessment of compensation for pain and suffering, focusing instead on the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victims. The court also granted the applicants an extension of time to make their applications, recognising the complexities involved in such cases.

The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicants compensation for the pain and suffering resulting from the crimes committed against their family members. The exact amount was determined based on the principles set out in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), taking into account the severity of the crimes and the impact on the applicants.

Orders