CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Child homicide – Plea of guilty – Appellant caused death of four month old son – Victim suffered brain haemorrhages, retinal haemorrhages and hypoxic brain damage – Appellant intoxicated – Initial lies about cause of injuries – Subsequent admission of being ‘too rough’ – Injuries caused by violent shaking and impact on hard surface – Circumstances of offending otherwise unknown – Sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with seven years non-parole period – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding on prospects of rehabilitation – Whether sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – Crimes Act 1958 s 5A, R v Hughes [2005] VSC 312, DPP v Woodford [2017] VSCA 312, R v Rowe [2018] VSC 490, R v Vinaccia [2019] VSC 683 considered.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Ms S Lenthall
Papa Hughes Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Respondent
Ms D I Piekusis QC
Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
MAXWELL P
KAYE JA EMERTON JA:
The appellant pleaded guilty to the child homicide of his infant son Flynn Staples on 7 May 2019. After a plea presented on his behalf, the appellant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.
The appellant, by leave, appeals against his sentence on two grounds:
Ground 1:The learned sentencing judge erred in his finding as to the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation.
Ground 2:The sentence imposed on charge 1 and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances.
Circumstances of offence
At the time of the offence the appellant was living with his then partner Robyn Hall in Kilsyth. The appellant and Ms Hall met in late 2015, and they commenced living together in April 2016. Subsequently, on 5 January 2019, Ms Hall gave birth to their son Flynn Staples. Flynn was a healthy baby and at the time of his death he had no known medical conditions.
At about 6:00 pm on Friday 3 May 2019, Ms Hall left home to attend a local cinema with a friend. The appellant remained at their home to care for Flynn. No other person was present in the home. About 15 minutes after Ms Hall left, the appellant also left the home. He walked a distance of about 350 metres to a shopping centre where he purchased eight cans of Woodstock Bourbon and Coke, each can containing 200 millilitres of 12 per cent alcohol premix, before walking back home.
At 10:00 pm on the same evening, Ms Hall returned home. The appellant was then painting in the kitchen. When Ms Hall checked on Flynn at 10:30 pm, he…
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 Staples v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Staples v The Queen [2021] VSCA 307
Case
[2021] VSCA 307
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Staples, was convicted of the manslaughter of his four-month-old son, who died from severe injuries including brain haemorrhages, retinal haemorrhages, and hypoxic brain damage. Staples initially lied about how the injuries were caused before admitting that he had been too rough with the child. The trial judge accepted that the injuries were caused by violent shaking and a subsequent impact on a hard surface. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal against the sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.
The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in finding on the prospects of rehabilitation and whether the sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive. The court examined the Crimes Act 1958 and relevant case law, including R v Hughes, DPP v Woodford, R v Rowe, and R v Vinaccia. Staples argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given his guilty plea and the lack of knowledge about the exact circumstances of the offence.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge was entitled to form the views on Staples’ prospects of rehabilitation based on the evidence presented. The court found no error in the judge’s assessment and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood. The court highlighted the importance of the appellant’s early guilty plea and the remorse shown, which were significant mitigating factors in the sentencing process.