Legal Research
Cases
Bednar v The King

Bednar v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 180 13 August 2024

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0054

THOMAS BEDNAR	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, McLEISH and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 August 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 180
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Bednar (Supreme Court of Victoria, Tinney J, 29 November 2022) (Conviction); [2023] VSC 67 (Sentence)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Where victim applicant’s mother –Where prosecution led evidence of representations made by applicant while involuntarily admitted to psychiatric ward – Where representations revealed deteriorating relationship between applicant and victim – Where judge gave jury ‘sanity’ direction – Whether evidence of representations admissible – Whether judge erred in giving sanity direction – Leave to appeal against conviction refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Where clothing worn by killer found at applicant’s premises – Where applicant linked to crime scene by fingerprint and DNA evidence – Where alternate suspect nominated – Whether jury must have had a reasonable doubt – Open to jury to reject alternate suspect hypothesis – Whether judge should have given unreliable witness direction in respect of alternate suspect – Jury well placed to evaluate alternate suspect’s evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Where applicant previously diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder with differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder – Where prosecution case that offending motivated by delusional beliefs – Where defence conceded that limbs 1 to 4 of R v Verdins not engaged – Where judge acted on defence concession – Total effective sentence 29 years – Non-parole period 23 years – Whether mental impairment contributed to offending – Leave to appeal against sentence granted – Appeal against sentence allowed – Appellant resentenced – Total effective sentence 25 years – Non-parole period 20 years.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276(1)(a); Evidence Act 2008, ss 55, 137, 165(1), 191; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 165(1); Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 14(1), 27, 31–2.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, Vinaccia v The Queen (2022) 70 VR 36, Young v The Queen [2015] VSCA 265, R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, applied; R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166, Wade (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2019] VSCA 168, Romero v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 486, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		Ms M Mahady with Ms S Locke
Solicitors
Applicant:	In person
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
MCLEISH JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

On 15 May 2021, Judy Bednar was found dead on the floor of her bedroom at 19 Drinan Road, Chelsea. She was 78 years old. She died as a consequence of multiple blunt force injuries.
On 29 November 2022, following a trial by jury, the applicant — the deceased’s son — was found guilty of murdering 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 Bednar v The King

Details

AGLC: Bednar v The King [2024] VSCA 180
Case: [2024] VSCA 180
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bednar has appealed against his conviction for murder and his sentence. The deceased was his mother. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced. The trial judge found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered his mother. The appellant had been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward after an incident of self-harm. While there, he made representations about his deteriorating relationship with his mother. The appellant argued that this evidence should not have been admitted as it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The judge directed the jury on the issue of sanity. The appellant submitted that the judge erred in giving that direction.

The jury found that the appellant's clothing and DNA were found at the crime scene. The appellant suggested an alternate suspect. The appellant argued that the jury should have had reasonable doubt about his guilt because of the alternate suspect evidence. The appellant also argued that the judge should have directed the jury to consider the reliability of the alternate suspect evidence. The court found that the alternate suspect evidence was a matter for the jury to consider and reject if they saw fit. The court found that the judge did not err in failing to give an unreliable witness direction in respect of the alternate suspect.

The appellant had been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. The prosecution argued that his offending was motivated by delusional beliefs. The defence conceded that limbs 1 to 4 of R v Verdins were not engaged. The judge imposed a total effective sentence of 29 years with a non-parole period of 23 years. The appellant argued that his mental impairment contributed to his offending and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant's mental impairment was a relevant consideration in sentencing. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal against sentence. The appellant was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years with a non-parole period of 20 years.

Orders