HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mason C.J., Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.
VEEN v. THE QUEEN (No. 2)
29 March 1988
Criminal Law
Criminal Law—Manslaughter—Diminished responsibility—Sentence—Principles—Protection of community—Preventive detention—Previous criminal history—Relevance to sentencing.
Decisions
MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DAWSON AND TOOHEY JJ. Early in 1971 the applicant, then almost 16, was apprehended by the police in Hyde Park in Sydney. He was already a homosexual prostitute. He was taken to the Darlinghurst Police Station where he pulled a knife out of his pocket and stabbed himself, puncturing a lung. No charge was laid against him on this occasion. In October 1971, an incident occurred in the boarding house where he was living in Albury, after he had been drinking. His landlady tried to get him to go to bed but he took a kitchen knife and lunged at the landlady. She escaped and attempted to run away. He ran after her and stabbed her three times in the back and once in the chest. On this occasion he appeared before the Children's Court and was convicted of malicious wounding and committed to an institution generally.
2. In 1975 the applicant, then aged 20, was picked up as a homosexual prostitute by a person with whom he spent the weekend. After the two had been drinking heavily, the applicant asked for payment. The other man refused saying: "No, you black bastards are all the same, always wanting handouts." (The applicant is an Aboriginal.) The applicant took a sharp, pointed knife from a kitchen rack and stabbed the other man to death, leaving the body with over 50 stab wounds. He was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter by a jury. The verdict was based on s.23A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), the jury being satisfied that he was suffering from "such abnormality of mind ... as substantially impaired his mental responsibility". Rath J. sentenced him to life imprisonment. His Honour came to the conclusion that, although life imprisonment was not otherwise appropriate for the crime, a life sentence ought to be imposed for the protection of the community by reason of the applicant's uncontrollable urges. His application to the Court of Criminal Appeal was unsuccessful but an appeal to this Court succeeded: Veen v. The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458 (hereafter "Veen (No. 1)"). The majority of the Court were of the opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment should be quashed and that a sentence of 12 years imprisonment should be substituted. He was sentenced accordingly but was released on licence pursuant to s.463 of the Crimes Act on 20 January 1983.
3. On 27 October 1983 he killed Paul Edmund Hoson whom he stabbed repeatedly with a bread knife. Hoson was also a homosexual. He had invited Veen to his flat for the purpose of homosexual activity. Veen was again charged with murder but the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter, again on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Hunt J.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Veen v The Queen (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1988] HCA 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Veen against his conviction for manslaughter. The central issue before the Court was the appropriate principles to be applied in sentencing for manslaughter, particularly in light of the offender's history of violent offending and the need to protect the community.
The Court was required to determine whether the protection of the community from dangerous offenders could justify a sentence that might otherwise be considered excessive, and the extent to which an offender's criminal history, especially a history of violence, was relevant to sentencing in such circumstances. The question also touched upon the concept of preventive detention in the context of sentencing for manslaughter.
The High Court affirmed that the primary purpose of sentencing is punishment, but that the protection of the community is also a legitimate and important consideration. The Court held that where an offender poses a significant danger to the community, this danger can be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence, even if it leads to a longer period of imprisonment than might otherwise be imposed for the offence itself. The Court emphasised that an offender's past criminal history, particularly a history of violent behaviour, is highly relevant to assessing the risk posed to the community and therefore to the sentencing determination. The principles of proportionality and retribution remain central, but must be balanced with the need for public protection.
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court was required to determine whether the protection of the community from dangerous offenders could justify a sentence that might otherwise be considered excessive, and the extent to which an offender's criminal history, especially a history of violence, was relevant to sentencing in such circumstances. The question also touched upon the concept of preventive detention in the context of sentencing for manslaughter.
The High Court affirmed that the primary purpose of sentencing is punishment, but that the protection of the community is also a legitimate and important consideration. The Court held that where an offender poses a significant danger to the community, this danger can be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence, even if it leads to a longer period of imprisonment than might otherwise be imposed for the offence itself. The Court emphasised that an offender's past criminal history, particularly a history of violent behaviour, is highly relevant to assessing the risk posed to the community and therefore to the sentencing determination. The principles of proportionality and retribution remain central, but must be balanced with the need for public protection.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for special leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.