R v Barrett - [2008] VSC 234

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1448 of 2004

THE QUEEN

ROBERT CLIFFORD BARRETT

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 March 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 June 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Barrett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 234

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K. Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Robert Clifford Barrett, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder and have admitted prior convictions. On Wednesday 11 June 2003, at 2.11 a.m. you rang 000 requesting an ambulance because, you said, a lady had suffered an assault and had stopped breathing. You told the operator she had returned from St Kilda “the other night” and she did not want to go to hospital.

At 2.17 a.m. a paramedic attended your home and was directed by your father to a rear bedroom where your de facto wife Jenny Brodhurst lay on a mattress on the floor. She was dead. You were found sitting on a couch in the lounge room, crying, your mother consoling you. Police arrived, you were arrested and conveyed to the Cranbourne Police Station.

In the car-park of the police station you said to the police present, “I am going to miss her, we've been together for years. I didn’t mean it, just like the last time. I thought she would get better. You know, my mum's a nurse, you know, I just get jealous.”

You were subsequently conveyed to the offices of the Homicide Squad and later on that day, after you had slept, you were seen by a forensic medical officer, Dr Marginean. You were cautioned in her presence and you told her you had suffered from a drug induced psychosis for 13 years, that your current medications were Xanax, Mogadon and Buprenorphine and that you had ceased taking Respiridone a fortnight beforehand. You reported that you had last taken amphetamines some time before the weekend and that you had had “a couple of caps of heroin yesterday”.

Dr Marginean determined that you were not then suffering from any psychosis nor did you appear drug affected and you were therefore fit to be interviewed. Consequently, you were interviewed by the police and in that interview you denied inflicting injuries causing Ms Brodhurst’s death (Q. 268). You stated that you and your mother nursed her for a couple of days, three or four days, (Q.270) and when asked why you called an ambulance you replied, “Because I kept asking Jenny in the prior days, ‘should I call an ambulance’, she wasn't able to talk but she was able to nod and every time I asked her she said no” (Q.105, 106). You also told the police that you were taking various medications and that you had taken Xanax just before you were arrested.

At approximately 9.30 a.m. on 11 June 2003, a pathologist,…

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 Barrett

Details

AGLC: R v Barrett [2008] VSC 234
Case: [2008] VSC 234
Decision Date: 27 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Clifford Barrett was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria for the murder of his de facto wife, Jenny Brodhurst. The case involved a history of domestic violence and drug abuse, culminating in a fatal assault on Brodhurst. Barrett pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and admitted to prior convictions. The court heard evidence of Barrett's violent history towards Brodhurst, including numerous instances of assault and abuse over a decade. The prosecution argued that the murder was a result of Barrett's reckless behaviour while under the influence of drugs, specifically amphetamines, which exacerbated his violent tendencies. The defence presented evidence of Barrett's drug-induced psychosis and his remorse for the crime.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Barrett, considering his history of violence, his drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, and his genuine remorse. The court had to balance the need for specific deterrence, the protection of the community, and the principles of justice, while also considering Barrett's plea of guilty and his expressed resolve to remain drug-free. The court also had to take into account the aggravating factors, such as the brutal nature of the assault and the prolonged suffering of the victim, against the mitigating factors, including Barrett's psychosis and his remorse.

Curtain J concluded that despite Barrett's psychosis and remorse, the severity of the crime and the need for community protection warranted a substantial prison sentence. The court imposed a sentence of 21 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court also noted that Barrett had already served a significant period of pre-sentence detention.

The final orders included the conviction and sentence of 21 years' imprisonment for the murder of Jenny Lorraine Brodhurst, with a non-parole period of 17 years. The court also ordered the retention of Barrett's saliva samples for future use in accordance with section 464ZF.

Orders