Legal Research
Cases
Eustace v The Queen

Eustace v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 142 25 May 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0006

DOUGLAS EUSTACE	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

----

JUDGE:	PRIEST, NIALL and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 May 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 142
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VSC 189 (Taylor J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Murder – Appellant stabbed wife repeatedly with knife – Sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment with 20 years non-parole – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Use of comparable sentencing cases – Sentence outside range established by previous cases – Early guilty plea, remorse, previous good character, good prospects of rehabilitation and risk of deportation – Appeal allowed – Resentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment with 16 years non-parole – Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520, Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 and DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant:	Mr P Tehan QC with Mr A Dinelli	Slades and Parsons
For the Respondent:	Mr C B Boyce QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
NIALL JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

Pursuant to leave granted by Priest JA,[1] the appellant Douglas Eustace, now aged 47 years,[2] appeals against a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years, imposed upon him on 26 March 2019 for the murder of his wife, Mary Freeman.[3]
[1]Eustace v The Queen (Unreported, Court of Appeal, Priest JA, 7 May 2020) (‘Leave Reasons’).
[2]His date of birth is 8 May 1974.
[3]R v Eustace [2019] VSC 189 (Taylor J) (‘Reasons for Sentence’).

The main thrust of the case made in support of the sole ground of appeal — which contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive — is that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is out of step with sentences passed in factually comparable cases involving the murder of intimate partners. Indeed, so counsel for the appellant submitted, the sentence imposed on the appellant is much higher than sentences imposed in cases where the offending was more serious, and cases in which — unlike the present — a plea of guilty was absent. The sentence is so high as to be outside the range of sentences reasonably open to the sentencing judge in the sound exercise of discretion.

Whilst accepting that the sentence is at the upper limits of the appropriate range, counsel for the respondent submitted that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

When granting leave to appeal, Priest JA observed:

Bearing the admonitions in Dalgliesh^[[4]]steadily in mind, and making due allowance for the limitations of so-called comparable cases,[5] my distinct impression is that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is considerably higher than those imposed in other relatively recent cases having similar features. Acknowledging that every case must depend on its own facts; that sentences in comparable cases…

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 Eustace v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Eustace v The Queen [2021] VSCA 142
Case: [2021] VSCA 142
Decision Date: 25 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Eustace v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife, whom he stabbed multiple times with a knife. The High Court of Australia was tasked with considering the appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years, was manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. The court was required to consider the appropriate weight to be given to various factors, including the appellant's early guilty plea, remorse, previous good character, prospects of rehabilitation, and the risk of deportation.

The court considered several previous cases, including Wong v The Queen, Hili v The Queen, Barbaro v The Queen, and DPP v Dalgliesh, to determine the appropriate range of sentences for comparable cases. The court noted that the sentence imposed in this case was outside the range established by previous cases for similar offences. The appellant's early guilty plea, remorse, previous good character, and prospects of rehabilitation were all considered to be significant mitigating factors. Additionally, the risk of deportation if the appellant were to be released from prison was also taken into account. The court ultimately determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The appellant was resentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering a range of factors when determining an appropriate sentence for a particular offence. The court emphasised that each case must be considered on its own merits, and that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The court also noted the importance of considering the potential consequences of a lengthy sentence, such as the risk of deportation, when determining an appropriate sentence. The final orders of the court were that the appellant's sentence be reduced to 21 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years.

Orders