R v Bangard - [2005] VSC 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1480 of 2004

THE QUEEN

JACQUES DESIRE BANGARD

---

JUDGE:	Whelan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9-11, 12, 15-19 November and 15 December 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 January 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bangard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 1

---

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – application of manual pressure to girlfriend’s neck leading to asphyxia – attempts to lay a false trail an aggravating factor – sentence of 11 years – non-parole period of eight years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Rochford	Clarebrough Pica

HIS HONOUR:

Jacques Bangard, on 19 November 2004 you were found guilty of the manslaughter of Maxine Florence Hayes. You had been charged with the murder of Maxine Hayes. You had pleaded not guilty.

Maxine Hayes was killed by you on 22 April 2003. You had met her approximately four months before her death and you formed a relationship. The two of you moved in together to a unit at Unit 1, 374 Scoresby Road, Knoxfield approximately six weeks prior to her death.

At approximately 9.30 pm on 22 April 2003 a telephone call between a friend of yours, Andrew Marandos, and you was cut off. At 9.54 pm you sent an SMS message to Mr Marandos to the effect that everything was okay and you were going to the shops. At approximately 10.00 pm you were recorded on the video cameras at the local Bi-Lo supermarket. At 10.18 pm Emergency Communication Victoria received a call via the 000 service from you. You told the operator that you had just returned to your unit and found your girlfriend, Maxine Hayes, on the floor and not moving. An ambulance attended the scene, as did the police. Maxine Hayes had been strangled to death. You told the ambulance officers and the police that you had returned from the Bi-Lo supermarket and found her dead.

The Crown case was that your account of events that night was untrue and that you had killed Maxine Hayes. The case against you was circumstantial. The Crown case was that there had been an argument between the two of you on the night before the death, Monday 21 April 2003, and that you had each slept most of Tuesday 22 April 2003. After waking, the argument resumed or a new argument began, in the course of which the deceased disconnected the phone while you were talking to your friend. The Crown case was that you then killed the deceased. The Crown relied upon evidence of the deceased’s volatile nature, together with evidence of the condition of the unit when the ambulance and police officers arrived, to support a conclusion that there had been a violent argument that night. The Crown case was that you immediately set about concealing your involvement…

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 Bangard

Details

AGLC: R v Bangard [2005] VSC 1
Case: [2005] VSC 1
Decision Date: 31 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bangard before the court involved the defendant, Bangard, who was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his girlfriend. The incident occurred when Bangard applied manual pressure to his girlfriend's neck, resulting in her death from asphyxia. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating factors present. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence and the appropriate non-parole period.

The legal issues before the court included the characterisation of the act as unlawful and dangerous, the relevance of any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the determination of an appropriate sentence and non-parole period. The court needed to consider the nature of the act, Bangard's intent, and any attempts to obstruct the investigation. The prosecution argued for a lengthy sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and deter similar conduct in the future, while the defence sought a lesser penalty, citing mitigating factors such as Bangard's otherwise good character.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the act of applying manual pressure to the victim's neck was indeed unlawful and dangerous, leading to her death. The court also considered the attempts to lay a false trail as an aggravating factor. After weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court sentenced Bangard to a total of 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years. The court determined that this sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the need to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of an 11-year sentence on Bangard, with a non-parole period of eight years. The court's decision was based on the unlawful and dangerous nature of Bangard's actions, the aggravating factor of attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the need for an appropriate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence while considering the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Orders