DPP v Bednar - [2023] VSC 67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0275

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS BEDNAR

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 February 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bednar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 67 (First Revision 27 February 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Killing of his 78 year-old mother by 54 year-old offender – Motives of anger and resentment – Murder carried out in home of deceased late at night in breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order – Multiple injuries inflicted on deceased in course of sustained beating - Accused had long-term psychiatric condition but no connection with offending and no reduction in moral culpability or need for deterrence or denunciation - Limbs 5 and 6 of R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’) enlivened – Continuing absence of any remorse – Very serious offending with high degree of moral culpability – Head sentence of 29 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 23 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford KC with Ms S Locke	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond with Ms N Kaddeche	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Thomas Bednar, you have been found guilty of the murder of your mother Judy Bednar carried out on 13 May 2021. The short duration of deliberations required by the jury empanelled in your trial to return this verdict may be seen as a clear reflection of the obvious strength of the prosecution case against you, and not at all a reflection of the determined efforts of your counsel Mr Desmond who appeared with Ms Kaddeche on your behalf throughout the trial.

Your murderous attack upon your 78 year-old mother which led to her death was preceded by a period of months during which your long-held ill-feelings towards her had grown in intensity for reasons upon which I will soon elaborate. You had engaged in a course of conduct designed to harass and intimidate her. She was frightened that you would harm her, the family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’) which had been in place for some time to protect her providing her little comfort that you would not act on your apparent hatred.

Immediately preceding your crime, and intent, I am satisfied, upon carrying out an attack upon her, you entered your mother’s home late at night in defiance of the FVIO. In circumstances which are not clear on the evidence, but upon which I will later expand as far as I am able, you physically attacked your mother in what could only have been a sustained and brutal fashion. You left her dead or dying on the floor of her bedroom, naked and alone, before making good your escape.

Thereafter you took steps to delay the discovery of her body, and from an early time, sought…

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 DPP v Bednar

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Bednar [2023] VSC 67
Case: [2023] VSC 67
Decision Date: 21 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Bednar involved a serious criminal offence where the accused, aged 54, killed his 78-year-old mother. The murder was committed in the late hours of the night at the deceased's home and was carried out in breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order. The offender inflicted multiple injuries upon his mother during a sustained beating. The accused had a long-term psychiatric condition, but it was determined that this did not have any connection with the offending. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the moral culpability of the offender, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the relevance of any mitigating factors. The court considered the factors outlined in limbs 5 and 6 of the Verdins case, which relate to the circumstances and background of the offender. Despite the offender's psychiatric condition, the court found that it did not reduce the moral culpability of the offence. Additionally, the offender's lack of remorse and the very serious nature of the crime were significant considerations.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that the murder was characterised by high moral culpability and the need for significant deterrence and denunciation. The head sentence imposed was 29 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 23 years. The court emphasised the importance of these sentences in reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect society. The judgment highlights the court's approach to sentencing in cases of murder, particularly where there is a breach of a Family Violence Intervention Order and the offender shows no remorse.

Orders