DPP v Fox - [2009] VSC 189

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1691 of 2008

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

GLEN MATTHEW FOX

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	30 March, 1 May 2009
DATES OF SENTENCE:	18 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Fox (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 189

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – plea of guilty – accused believed victim to be paedophile – belief mistaken – accused and accused’s son victims of abuse as children – accused’s bipolar affective disorder – considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr B Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Victoria Legal Aid.

------------

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Fox, you may be seated during sentence.

Mr Fox, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Noble Park between 22 and 24 September 2007 of Lachhman Singh. You and he resided in a boarding house at Noble Park. You came to believe, wrongly, that Mr Singh was a paedophile. You had been sexually abused as a child and your son had been sexually abused and had committed suicide. Acting on your mistaken belief, you went to Mr Singh’s room, tortured him with a knife, and then killed him by cutting his throat. Mr Singh was not a paedophile, was entitled to his life, and has left grieving children. At his death he was 51 years of age and you were 45. You are now almost 47. You were born on 27 May 1962.

You were living at the boarding house, were unemployed, and were indulging in polysubstance abuse. You had been the eldest of eight siblings and had grown up in the Oakleigh area. You have had one marriage, numerous relationships, and a number of children, as recorded in Dr Lester Walton’s report of 22 December 2008 (Exhibit 1) at pp 2-3. You had had a chequered employment history. You had a considerable number of prior convictions – 37 convictions sustained on 10 occasions before the courts from 1982 to 2004 – but most were for driving offences, dishonesty offences, drink and drug offences, and for low-level violence. You had been sentenced for imprisonment on three separate occasions, once of which was suspended. One offence was particularly serious and nasty – armed robbery in company, of defenceless women in an Oakleigh bank in 1989 and theft thereof (Exhibit A on the plea) –for which you were sentenced to an effective term of 5 years 3 months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 2 years and 9 months, a merciful sentence in my view. At the time of the murder you had been residing at the boarding house for some three weeks and your life was at a low point.

The deceased, Mr Lachhman Singh, was born in India and had moved to Australia some 26 years ago. He married and had one son, now 23 years of age. A divorce occurred and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DPP v Fox 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] VSC 189
Decision Date: 18 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Fox, the High Court of Australia was tasked with considering the appropriate sentence for a man who had pleaded guilty to the murder of a man he believed to be a paedophile. The accused had mistakenly identified the victim as someone who had previously abused both him and his son. The accused had a history of bipolar affective disorder and had been subjected to abuse as a child. The court was required to consider these factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the accused’s history of abuse, his mistaken belief about the victim’s identity, and his mental health condition should inform the sentence. The court considered whether these factors should mitigate the sentence or whether they should be disregarded in favour of the gravity of the offence. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant impact of the accused’s past abuse and his mental health condition on his actions. However, the court also emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court ultimately determined that, while the accused’s history and mental health condition were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime. The court imposed a sentence that balanced these considerations, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders