CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Victim attacked in own home – Applicant former husband of victim – Dispute over proposed relocation of victim and children to UK – Killing occurred shortly before relocation – False alibi – Post-offence conduct – Whether reasonably open to jury to exclude innocent explanation – Conviction not unsafe – Appeal dismissed – Jury Directions Act 2013 s 23(1).
EVIDENCE – Opinion evidence – Evidence regarding characteristics of brand of work boot – Witness worked for boot manufacturer – Whether relevant – Whether ‘specialised knowledge’ – Whether opinions based on specialised knowledge – Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence properly admitted – Evidence Act2008 ss 55, 79(1), 137.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Crown appeal – Murder – Victim attacked in own home – Applicant former husband of victim – Dispute over proposed relocation of victim and children to UK – Plea of not guilty – Sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 19 years – Whether manifestly inadequate – Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Ms C Boston (Conviction appeal)
Spicer Lawyers
Mr P Faris QC with Ms C Boston (Sentence appeal)
Spicer Lawyers
For the Crown
Mr D Trapnell QC with Ms J Powell
Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
---
MAXWELL P REDLICH JA WHELAN JA:
Following a trial before a Supreme Court jury, the applicant, Robert Meade, was convicted of the murder of his former wife. He was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years.
Mr Meade now seeks leave to appeal against conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions has separately lodged an appeal against the sentence on the ground of manifest inadequacy. For reasons which follow, we would grant leave to appeal against conviction but dismiss the appeal, and we would dismiss the Director’s appeal against sentence.
Background circumstances
Mr Meade married Sally Brooks in 1999. They had three children, born in 2000, 2002 and 2004 respectively. Their relationship was marked by periods of separation and reconciliation, before they finally separated in late 2008 or early 2009.
They divorced in 2009. Ms Brooks stayed in the family home at Donvale and had custody of the three children. Mr Meade had access visits to the children on average once every three weeks.
In 2008, Mr Meade met IA, a Russian national, through an on-line dating site. IA and her daughter subsequently moved to Australia to live with Mr Meade. Mr Meade and IA were…
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 Meade v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Meade v The Queen [2015] VSCA 171
Case
[2015] VSCA 171
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Meade v The Queen, the applicant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his former wife. The victim was attacked in her own home, and the dispute between the parties centred around the proposed relocation of the victim and their children to the UK. The killing occurred shortly before the planned relocation, and the applicant had provided a false alibi. The case involved significant post-offence conduct, and the central legal issue was whether it was reasonably open to the jury to exclude an innocent explanation for the applicant’s involvement in the crime. The court considered the circumstantial evidence presented and the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice.
The court addressed the legal issues by examining the evidence provided, including expert opinion evidence about the characteristics of a particular brand of work boot, which was relevant to the case. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted under the Evidence Act 2008 as it was based on specialised knowledge and its probative value outweighed any potential unfair prejudice. The court also considered the direction given to the jury under the Jury Directions Act 2013, determining that the jury was properly guided in their consideration of the evidence. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed as the court found the conviction to be safe and reliable.
The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed. The court found that the sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years was not manifestly inadequate. The severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the murder were taken into account, and the sentence was deemed appropriate. The appeal process concluded with the affirmation of both the conviction and the sentence imposed on the applicant.