JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, KYROU JA and MACAULAY AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 339
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VSC 234 (Emerton J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Manslaughter – Guilty plea – Applicant stabbed partner in neck – Sentence 9 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period 6 years and 9 months – Moral culpability – Whether reduced by family violence – Expert evidence – No causal link to family violence – Offending influenced by drug use – Relevance of disadvantaged background – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Serious offending – Sentence within range – Judge’s findings open – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Dann QC	Melinda Walker, Criminal Law Solicitor
For the Respondent	Ms M Mahady	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
KYROU JA
MACAULAY AJA:

Summary

The applicant (‘E’)[1] pleaded guilty to a single charge of manslaughter. She was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months. She now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the following grounds: (a) the judge erred in finding that her moral culpability was not lessened in any way by the violence perpetrated upon her; (b) the judge erred in finding that her moral culpability was high; and (c) the sentence was manifestly excessive.
[1]The abbreviation is used for ease of reference not anonymity.

For reasons which follow, leave to appeal must be refused. In our view, it was well open to her Honour to find that E’s moral culpability was high and was not lessened by her experience of family violence. That being so, it is not reasonably arguable that the sentence imposed was outside the range.

Factual background

E stabbed the victim (‘P’) in the neck. He died as a result of the injuries inflicted. E was initially charged with murder, to which she pleaded not guilty. She was subsequently arraigned on a charge of manslaughter and pleaded guilty.

E was 35 years old at the time of the offending and 38 years old at the time of sentence. She had experienced significant disadvantage. At the time of her conception her parents were only 16 years old. Her mother was an Aboriginal woman of the Taungurong people. Her father was almost totally absent from her life. As a child, E was exposed to drug abuse and was the victim of neglect and violence perpetrated by her mother, who used methamphetamine and was physically abusive towards her. When E was three years old, her mother entered into a relationship which was characterised by family violence. That relationship lasted until E was six years old. From an early age she was required to look after her siblings.[2]
[2]R v Edwards [2019] VSC 234, [57]–[58] (‘Reasons’).

The only constant…

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 Edwards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen [2020] VSCA 339
Case: [2020] VSCA 339
Decision Date: 23 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Edwards, was convicted of manslaughter following the stabbing of his partner in the neck. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and nine months, imposed on the appellant after he entered a guilty plea. The central legal issues revolved around the consideration of moral culpability, the influence of family violence and drug use on the offence, and the relevance of the appellant's disadvantaged background in sentencing.

The court examined whether the appellant's moral culpability was reduced due to family violence, and whether there was a causal link between the violence and the offence. The court also considered the impact of drug use on the offending and the relevance of the appellant's disadvantaged background. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range, and the judge's findings were open to reasonable interpretation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.

The court also noted that the judge had considered the expert evidence provided, but ultimately determined that there was no causal link between the family violence and the offending. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, and that the influence of drug use and the appellant's disadvantaged background were relevant factors in the sentencing process. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and held that the judge's findings were open and not clearly against the weight of the evidence.

The High Court of Australia refused the appellant's application for special leave to appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range, and that the judge's findings on moral culpability, family violence, drug use, and the appellant's background were open and supported by the evidence. The court found that the appellant's moral culpability was not significantly reduced by family violence, and that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

Orders