The Queen v Pratley - [2013] VSC 298

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0139

THE QUEEN

DEAN PRATLEY

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 June 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 June 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Pratley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 298

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Incitement to murder – Early plea of guilty – No previous convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Unique circumstances – Community Corrections Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Borg	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J McMahon	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Dean Pratley, you have pleaded guilty to one count of incitement to murder. Incitement to murder is a very serious offence, punishable by life imprisonment. In the context of this case the incitement was your request or encouragement of a covert police operative to kill Ahmad Keshtiar. Ordinarily, an offence of incitement to murder such as this would attract an immediate and substantial sentence of imprisonment. In the unusual circumstances of your case, however, for reasons that I will shortly state, I have decided to sentence you to a community corrections order for two (2) years, with a number of conditions.

The offending may be briefly described. It is fully described in the Crown opening, Exhibit A, and I need only set out the essential facts.

On the 9th day of February 2012 you and your friend, Thorn Brown, met with a man named ‘Kosta’. At that meeting you both incited Kosta to murder Ahmad Keshtiar (‘Keshtiar’). Unbeknown to you and Brown, Kosta was in fact a member of the Victoria police who was engaged as a covert operative.

Prior to the meeting you and Brown had been engaged by Wahid Najibi (‘Najibi’) to murder Keshtiar, and the purpose of your meeting was for you to enlist Kosta’s help in that task. You and Brown had been told that someone in the Afghani community wanted Keshtiar murdered because he had brought dishonour on their family.

Unfortunately for you, and perhaps fortunately for Keshtiar, prior to your meeting with Kosta, police became aware that there was a plot to kill Keshtiar. They thus arranged for covert operative 258 to telephone Brown to offer assistance. For the purposes of the investigation covert operative 258 used the assumed name of ‘Kosta’.

You met Brown at school when you were about 14 or 15 years old. It seems to me that your offending arose out of a misguided sense of loyalty to him.

The origin of your part in the offence can be traced back to mid to late January 2012, when you visited Brown at his mother’s home and saw that he had a black eye and swollen mouth. Brown told you that he had got into a fight. He would not leave the house and wanted to rest up. You were suspicious of the circumstances leading to the injuries, since you…

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 The Queen v Pratley

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Pratley [2013] VSC 298
Case: [2013] VSC 298
Decision Date: 7 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen versus Pratley was a criminal proceeding in which the defendant was charged with incitement to murder. Pratley pleaded guilty to the charge at an early stage of the legal process. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence given the defendant's early guilty plea, lack of prior convictions, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The unique circumstances of the case also played a significant role in the sentencing considerations.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for incitement to murder, particularly in light of Pratley's early plea, clean criminal record, and potential for rehabilitation. The court was also required to consider the unique circumstances surrounding the offence and whether they warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The balance between punishment and rehabilitation was a central concern.

The court found that Pratley's early guilty plea and absence of prior convictions were mitigating factors that warranted consideration. Additionally, the court noted Pratley's good prospects for rehabilitation, which suggested that a custodial sentence might not be necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing. The unique circumstances, while serious, did not outweigh the mitigating factors sufficiently to warrant a more severe penalty. Consequently, the court decided to impose a community corrections order, balancing the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Pratley be subject to a community corrections order, reflecting the considerations of his early plea, clean record, and rehabilitation prospects, while ensuring public safety and addressing the seriousness of the offence.

Orders