Legal Research
Cases
Walters v The Queen

Walters v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 164 20 June 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0012

BRADLEY JAMES WALTERS
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	20 June 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 June 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 164
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Walters [2012] VSC 608 (Macaulay J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder – Sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period 17 years – Whether culpability reduced because applicant intended to cause really serious injury rather than to kill – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Culpability to be assessed by reference to full circumstances of killing – Applicant’s culpability high – Leave to appeal refused – Barrett v The Queen (2010) 27 VR 522 applied

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Hallowes	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I invite Coghlan JA to deliver the first judgment.

COGHLAN JA:

After a trial lasting nine days the applicant was convicted of murder. On 7 December 2012 he was sentenced to be imprisoned for 20 years and a period of 17 years was fixed before he was to be eligible for parole. The applicant had been in custody for 431 days at the time of sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the following grounds:

Ground 1: the sentencing judge erred in finding that the Applicant intending to cause really serious injury rather than intending to kill was not a factor to be taken into account on sentence.
Ground 2: the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offending are set out in the Registrar’s Neutral Summary as follows:

The applicant and Edwin Singer (the deceased) were residents of a boarding house in Geelong. Both had issues relating to alcohol abuse.
The applicant had a number of run-ins with the deceased over the latter’s habit of defecating in the corridor. They had an altercation the day before the deceased was killed over the issue.
On the morning of Sunday 2 October 2011, the publican, Mr Moore, told the deceased he had to leave the boarding house by the end of the week due to complaints from other residents about his unsanitary habit.
Later that afternoon the applicant was drinking alcohol with other residents on the first floor. As he became more affected by alcohol, he became more agitated at the deceased. The applicant repeatedly went to the deceased’s room and demanded he come out and clean up his mess. The deceased remained in his room for some time, until he eventually left to use the bathroom. The applicant accosted the deceased as he returned to his room.
The applicant punched the deceased in the head and chest until he went to ground. The applicant, who was wearing steel capped boots, then kicked him in the chest. The applicant then left the deceased and went back to the…

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 Walters v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Walters v The Queen [2013] VSCA 164
Case: [2013] VSCA 164
Decision Date: 20 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Walters v The Queen involved the defendant, Walters, appealing against his sentence for the crime of murder. Walters was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Walters' culpability was reduced due to his intent to cause serious injury rather than to kill, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of culpability in light of the full circumstances of the killing, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the culpability. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant's culpability was high enough to justify the sentence, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The case law of Barrett v The Queen provided a framework for the court’s consideration of these issues.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the culpability was to be assessed based on the full circumstances of the killing, including the intent behind the act. The court held that Walters' culpability was high, as evidenced by the brutal nature of the crime. The sentence was not deemed manifestly excessive because it reflected the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. The principles established in Barrett v The Queen were applied, reinforcing the appropriateness of the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders