R v Baxter - [2009] VSC 180

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1542 of 2007

THE QUEEN

ROBERT GORDON BAXTER

---

JUDGE:	FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2009 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Baxter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 180

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Murder – Deceased wife stabbed brutally on multiple occasions in the family home with children present – Mental impairment defence rejected by jury - No remorse – No acceptance of responsibility – Offender’s depressive condition – Offender assessed by treating psychiatrist prior to offence - R v Verdins considerations.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. O’Sullivan	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 11 March 2009, after a ten day trial, a jury convicted you of the murder of your wife, Linda, on 2 August 2006. The jury rejected the defence you proffered pursuant to s 20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic).

At your family home in Lara, whilst your children slept, you brutally stabbed Linda to death with repeated blows to her face, neck and chest. She was defenceless and had done nothing to provoke your extraordinarily vicious attack.

Maximum penalty

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment, and the most serious cases of murder attract penalties of 25 years’ imprisonment or, in some cases, life imprisonment.

The facts

You were born on 26 November 1957 and were raised in Reservoir. You are now 51 years of age. The deceased, Linda Baxter, was born on 13 January 1964. In 1984, you met on a holiday and you were married in July 1985. You have two children, a daughter who is now aged 14, and a son who is now aged 11. You and Linda initially lived in Belmont and then, for approximately 12 years, at 7 Dixon Court, Lara.

You were a very good student and your subsequent work record was exemplary. For 25 years you were employed by FrontLine Defence Systems, rising to the position of Chief Financial Officer. When that company relocated to Queensland, you left its full-time employment in 2002. In 2003, Linda obtained employment with Rapp Australia and within a relatively short period had become the production manager for that company. In July 2004, you obtained employment as the General Secretary for the Australian Red Cross Society.

The evidence disclosed that you and Linda had a relatively happy marriage, although, I am satisfied, your domineering personality eventually took its toll on Linda. She sought solace initially on a confidante basis from Brian Stevens, who was a friend of your family. In 2003, Brian Stevens’ relationship with Linda became intimate and she continued a relationship with him up until the time of her death in August 2006. Neither she nor Brian Stevens disclosed this to friends or family or…

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 Baxter

Details

AGLC: R v Baxter [2009] VSC 180
Case: [2009] VSC 180
Decision Date: 15 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the defendant, Baxter, was convicted of the murder of his wife. The brutal stabbing of the deceased occurred in the family home in the presence of their children. Baxter appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in failing to consider his mental state as a mitigating factor. The prosecution argued that the sentence should reflect the heinous nature of the crime and the lack of remorse shown by the offender.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the offender's mental state and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles set out in R v Verdins, which require the court to consider the offender's mental state and any mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also considered the offender's lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility for his actions.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to consider the offender's mental state as a mitigating factor, as the jury had rejected the defence of mental impairment. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the heinous nature of the crime and the lack of remorse shown by the offender. The court noted that the offender's depressive condition did not excuse his actions and that the sentence should reflect the need for general deterrence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders