CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Rape – Murder – Offences committed while prisoner released on parole and on bail – Post offence aggravating conduct – Transported deceased to rural area and buried body – Weight to be given to subsequent plea of guilty following protracted denial of involvement – Recidivist violent sexual offender – Psychological assessment of borderline personality disorder – Verdins principles not enlivened – Prospects of rehabilitation guarded – Remorse problematic in light of past offending – Parole – Effect of need to consider age of prisoner – Total effective sentence of life imprisonment with non-parole period of 35 years – Veen (No 2) v R (1987) 164 CLR 465; R v Lowe (1997) 2 VR 465; R v Zhang [2009] VSCA 236; R v Lecornu [2012] VSCA 137; R v Basso & Frazzetto (1999) 108 A Crim R 392; Phillips v R [2012] VSCA 140; R v Alashkar & Taylor (2007) 17 VR 65; R v Bazely (1993) 65 A Crim R 154; R v Romero [2011] VSCA 45; R v Quarry (2005) 11 VR 337, applied; Gill v R [2010] VSCA 67; Tutchell v R (2006) 168 A Crim R 25, referred to – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 6B(2), 6D(a)(b), 6E, 16(3B)(3C), 11(1), 6E, 6F, 14, 18, 6AAA; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 ss 34(1)(c), (4)(a).
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr G J C Silbert SC with Mr B L Sonnett and Ms D Mandie
Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused
Mr S Holt SC with Mr P Smallwood
Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:
Adrian Ernest Bayley, you have pleaded guilty to the rape and murder of Gillian Edie Meagher at Brunswick on 22 September 2012 and you have been convicted of those offences.
The facts
Gillian Meagher was a young married woman of 29 years of age who was employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On the evening of Friday 21 September 2012, she and other employees of the Corporation attended a birthday party for one of their co-employees at Fad Gallery in the City. Ms Meagher left the party at about 9.00 pm in company with three of her co-employees and they travelled by taxi to the Brunswick Green Hotel in Sydney Road, Brunswick. When the bar there closed at about 1.00 am the next morning, Ms Meagher and one of her co-employees walked up Sydney Road to Bar Etiquette for a last drink for the evening. At about 1.30 am, the co-employee offered to walk Ms Meagher home but she declined, saying…
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 Bayley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Bayley [2013] VSC 313
Case
[2013] VSC 313
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Bayley, was convicted of the rape and murder of a woman, Ms. O’Leary, committed while he was released on parole and subsequently on bail. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where Bayley appealed his conviction and sentence. The core legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate weight to be given to Bayley’s subsequent plea of guilty, the post-offence conduct, and the sentencing principles to apply in light of Bayley’s criminal history, psychological profile, and prospects for rehabilitation.
The court examined the nature of Bayley’s offending, noting his prior history of violent sexual offences, which rendered the Verdins principles inapplicable. It also considered the impact of his post-offence conduct, including transporting and burying the victim’s body, and his denial of involvement followed by a plea of guilty. The court assessed Bayley’s psychological assessment indicating borderline personality disorder, which impacted the prospects of rehabilitation and the display of remorse. The court applied the principles from Veen (No 2) v R and other relevant cases, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It concluded that a life sentence was appropriate, but the parole eligibility needed to reflect Bayley’s age and the seriousness of the crimes.
Given the aggravating factors and Bayley’s criminal history, the court determined a life sentence with a non-parole period of 35 years was appropriate. This sentence was designed to ensure Bayley’s continued detention until he posed no significant risk to the community, considering his age and the severity of the crimes. The court also noted the necessity of Bayley’s registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.