R v Badenoch - [2002] VSC 340

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1473 of 2000

THE QUEEN

FARREN DEACON BADENOCH

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF PLEA:	16 AND 17 JULY 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 JULY 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. FARREN DEACON BADENOCH
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 340

---

SENTENCE – Murder – Confrontation initiated by deceased – Intention to cause really serious bodily injury not to kill – Large number of mitigating factors – Offender sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment with lower than normal non-parole period of 9 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J. Leckie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms. F. McNiff	Allan McMonnies

HIS HONOUR:

Farren Deacon Badenoch, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Amalie Margaret Badenoch on 1 March 2000 at Mildura South. I should make it clear at the outset that, although it was open to the jury to find you guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter, I am bound by the jury verdict of murder.

That verdict was announced in October last year, and the delay in passing sentence upon you has been caused by a number of factors, but principally by your dispensing with the services of your counsel and thereafter, your understandable desire for preparation time before presenting your plea in person. Ultimately, the plea of mitigation was undertaken by Ms McNiff of counsel and I acknowledge the assistance I have derived from her comprehensive submissions on penalty.

In order to sentence you, it is necessary to briefly outline the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence.

Amalie Badenoch was your younger sister. She had led a sadly troubled life, aspects of which it is necessary to mention. This is not for the purpose of denigrating her but in order to place these events in context.

Records from the Department of Psychiatry at the Mildura Base Hospital record Ms Badenoch's treatment for multiple drug abuse and a diagnosis of her as an inadequate personality at the age of 15. In October 1995, five months before her death, she was admitted to the Mildura Hospital, having behaved bizarrely in public and having threatened to kill people. A history of violence was noted and a diagnosis of major depression and drug abuse was made. Ms Badenoch was prescribed antidepressant medication.

Subsequent to her discharge she reported frequent feelings of anger and aggression to her case manager. In November 1999, Ms Badenoch ceased medication because of a possible pregnancy. Thereafter, a failure by her to keep appointments resulted in the cessation of the monitoring activities which had been undertaken by the Mildura Hospital Department of Psychiatry.

Ms Badenoch's propensity for violent behaviour, including the use of weapons, particularly when she was affected by alcohol or drugs, was detailed by a number of witnesses in your trial, including the mother of you both, Mrs Dale Badenoch-Maltby; by friends of the deceased; 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.

Continue reading R v Badenoch

Details

AGLC: R v Badenoch [2002] VSC 340
Case: [2002] VSC 340
Decision Date: 31 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Badenoch involved the sentencing of the appellant, who had been found guilty of murdering the deceased. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the nature of the confrontation that led to the deceased's death and the appellant's intentions at the time of the incident. The court was also required to consider a substantial number of mitigating factors presented by the appellant's legal team. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence against the mitigating factors presented, including the appellant's background, personal circumstances, and the nature of the confrontation. The court also had to determine the non-parole period, which is the minimum time the appellant must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

The court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the appellant's intention was to cause really serious bodily harm rather than to kill. It considered the confrontation initiated by the deceased and the appellant's background, which included a history of mental health issues and substance abuse. The court found that while the offence was severe, the appellant's background and the mitigating factors presented warranted a reduced sentence. The court sentenced the appellant to 14 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years, reflecting the mitigating factors and the nature of the confrontation.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be imprisoned for 14 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years. This sentence balanced the gravity of the offence with the mitigating factors presented by the appellant's legal team.

Orders