Legal Research
Cases
R v Beckett

R v Beckett

Case [1998] VSCA 148 22 December 1998

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not restricted
No. 196 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
LINDSAY HOANI BECKETT

---

JUDGES: TADGELL, BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 3 December 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 December 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 148

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Murder - Life imprisonment - Non-parole period 35 years - No sentencing error - Not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr G. Hicks and P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Ms K.E. Judd Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr. P.F. Tehan Q.C. and Victoria Legal Aid
Ms C. Pulbrook

THE COURT :

The applicant, Lindsay Hoani Beckett, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to two counts of murder. After hearing a plea in mitigation Vincent, J., on 20 August last, sentenced him for each of the offences to be imprisoned for life and ordered that he serve a minimum term of 35 years before becoming eligible for release on parole. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.
The case exhibited several unusual features. Prominent among them was a concession by counsel for the applicant before Vincent, J. not only that the imposition of sentences of life imprisonment was appropriate but that in the circumstances they were the only appropriate sentences to be imposed. The only sentencing issues, therefore, that fell to be determined by the learned judge in his discretion were whether a minimum term should be fixed and, if so, what it should be. Accordingly, the ultimate question falling for determination on this application is whether, as the applicant contends, the minimum term should be reduced.
The crimes of murder were committed on Monday 6 October 1997 in densely forested country at Fiddler's Green Creek in the remote far north-east of Victoria. The immediate victims were two schoolgirls, Lauren Margaret Barry, who was a few days short of her 15th birthday, and Nichole Emma Collins, who was within about a month of attaining her 17th birthday. Both lived at Bega, a town on the Princes Highway inland 18 kilometres from the New South Wales south coast hamlet of Tathra and some 115 kilometres north of the Victorian border. Together with other girls and boys, the two girls, students at Bega High School, had been camping during the long weekend of 4-6 October 1997 by way of recreation not far from where they lived. They were reported missing late on Sunday 5 October and, so far as is known, were never afterwards seen alive save, apparently, by the applicant and one Leslie Alfred Camilleri who, according to the applicant, were "best friends". These two men, at the relevant time aged respectively about 23 and 28 years, lived at Yass, a town on the Hume Highway north of Canberra. The applicant subsequently described to police the interception of the two girls by himself and Camilleri at about 10 p.m. on Sunday 5 October. Camilleri was driving his Ford Telstar sedan easterly along the Bega-Tathra…

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 Beckett

Details

AGLC: R v Beckett [1998] VSCA 148
Case: [1998] VSCA 148
Decision Date: 22 December 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Beckett, the respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years. The appellant, Beckett, sought to appeal the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the crime that it constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in imposing such a lengthy non-parole period.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need to consider the gravity of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the deterrence and community protection objectives. It was necessary to assess whether the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for a murder conviction, taking into account relevant precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The High Court had to decide if the trial judge's approach was flawed and whether the sentence deviated significantly from what could be seen as a fair reflection of the crime's severity.

After a detailed analysis of the evidence and the sentencing principles, the High Court found no error in the trial judge's approach. The court held that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence. The High Court concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years be confirmed as appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders