Brooks v Meade - [2017] VSC 172

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0092

ALISON BROOKS

– and –

ELIZABETH CATHERINE MEADE

– and –

ARCHIE MEADE

– and –

CHARLOTTE JENIFER MEADE

First Applicant

Second Applicant

Third Applicant

Fourth Applicant

ROBERT ARTHUR MEADE

Respondent

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Brooks v Meade
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 172

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Compensation – Applicants are sister and three children of deceased – Sister awarded $600,000 and three children awarded $100,000 each, less amounts already received under Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 – Pain and suffering – Loss of earnings – Costs incurred in raising children – Financial circumstances of respondent – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 85B, 85K

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms H Bonney	Pearce Webster Dugdales
For the Respondent	Appeared in person by video-link

HIS HONOUR:

In 2013, the respondent, Robert Arthur Meade, was convicted after a lengthy trial of having murdered his former wife, Sally Brooks.

Ms Brooks died on 11 July 2011 from injuries inflicted upon her when she was savagely attacked in her home in Donvale some 10 days earlier. She suffered multiple skull fractures which led to fatal brain injuries. These were the result of at least two blows having been delivered to her head with a blunt object. The respondent maintained throughout that he had had nothing whatever to do with the murder. The case against him was circumstantial, but was described by the Court of Appeal as ‘strong’.

The motive for the murder was said to be the respondent’s anger at Ms Brooks’ decision to move to England, taking their three children with her. There had been a bitterly contested dispute in the Family Court in 2011, but that had seemingly resolved. Nonetheless, the Crown maintained that the respondent harboured deep resentment and hatred towards his former wife, culminating in his decision to kill her.

On 11 December 2013, the respondent was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years. He subsequently sought leave to appeal his conviction, but was unsuccessful.

This present proceeding involves Ms Brooks’ identical twin sister, Alison, and the three children of the respondent’s marriage, Elizabeth, Archie and Charlie. They seek compensation, pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991, for the death of Sally Brooks.

At the time of their mother’s murder Elizabeth was aged 10, Archie was 9, and Charlotte was 7. They are now aged 16, 15 and 13 respectively.

Section 85B relevantly provides as follows:

Compensation order
(1)       If a court—
(a)       finds a person guilty of an offence; or
(b)       convicts a person of an offence—
it may, on the application of a person who has suffered any injury as a direct result of the offence, order the offender to pay compensation of such amount as the court…

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 Brooks v Meade

Details

AGLC: Brooks v Meade [2017] VSC 172
Case: [2017] VSC 172
Decision Date: 6 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in Brooks v Meade are the sister and three children of the deceased, who was murdered. The dispute involves the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicants under the Sentencing Act 1991. The court was required to determine the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the sister and the children of the deceased for their respective losses. The court needed to consider the nature and extent of the losses suffered by the applicants, including pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and costs incurred in raising the children. The court also needed to consider the financial circumstances of the respondent, the murderer.

In Brooks v Meade, the court awarded the sister of the deceased $600,000 and each of the three children $100,000, less any amounts already received under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. The court held that the sister was entitled to compensation for her pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and the costs incurred in raising the children. The court held that the children were entitled to compensation for their loss of dependency and the costs incurred in raising them. The court also held that the financial circumstances of the respondent were relevant in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded. The court held that the respondent was unable to pay the full amount of compensation awarded, and therefore the applicants would receive less than the full amount awarded.

The court's decision in Brooks v Meade provides guidance on the factors to be considered when determining the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the family of a murder victim. The court held that the sister of the deceased was entitled to a higher amount of compensation than the children, due to her closer relationship with the deceased and the greater extent of her losses. The court also held that the financial circumstances of the respondent were relevant in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, and that the applicants would receive less than the full amount awarded if the respondent was unable to pay. The final orders of the court were that the sister of the deceased was to receive $600,000, less any amounts already received under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, and that each of the three children was to receive $100,000, less any amounts already received.

Orders