R v Borg - [2012] VSC 565

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0099 of 2011
No. 0162 of 2011

THE QUEEN

LEONARD BORG

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	1, 8 and 26 June 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Borg
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 565

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Cultivation of narcotic plants – Handling stolen goods – Guilty verdict on murder after trial – Planned murder – Concealment and degradation of body – Absence of remorse – Psychological assessment – Cognitive ability – Link between count of cultivation of narcotic plants and count of murder.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Gibson with Ms R Sharp	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C Randazzo SC Ms S Poulter	Theo Magazis and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Leonard Borg, on 2 April 2012 you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Peter Rule. You had pleaded not guilty to that crime and the principal issue during the course of the trial was whether or not the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were the person that caused the death of Peter Rule.

On 1 June 2012 at the commencement of the plea hearing on your behalf, you pleaded guilty to two other related charges – one count of handling stolen goods and one count of cultivating a narcotic plant. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and the maximum penalty for both of the other two offences is 15 years’ imprisonment. I must now sentence you for those crimes and, of course, I must do so consistently with the verdict of the jury on the count of murder.

On 1 June 2012, I commenced to hear submissions from the Crown and on your behalf in relation to the appropriate penalty. Those submissions continued on 8 June 2012 and then on 26 June 2012.

Circumstances of offending

You had known the deceased man Peter Rule for a number of years and you and he had a number of common connections. The evidence before the jury indicated that there were people other than yourself with some hostility towards Peter Rule, but by their verdict the jury were obviously satisfied that notwithstanding that, you were responsible for his death.

The murder of Peter Rule was committed by you, so the Crown put to the jury, after you became suspicious that Rule could not be trusted with the knowledge that you were growing hydroponic marijuana in several different locations. The evidence showed that you had been growing marijuana at premises at 1 Rosanna Court, Craigieburn and that that was a marijuana crop which came to the attention of police in March 2009. According to the evidence at your trial that crop involved about 20 plants.[1] Apparently, according to the evidence, you believed Rule had informed the police on you in relation to that crop. You…

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 Borg

Details

AGLC: R v Borg [2012] VSC 565
Case: [2012] VSC 565
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Borg, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution argued that the appellant, along with others, had planned the murder of a victim, which involved the concealment and degradation of the victim's body. The appellant was also found guilty of cultivating narcotic plants and handling stolen goods. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes, the connection between the cultivation of narcotic plants and the murder, and the appellant's cognitive ability and psychological state. The court considered whether the appellant's cognitive ability and psychological state should be taken into account when determining the sentence, and whether there was a link between the cultivation of narcotic plants and the murder.

The court found that the appellant had shown no remorse for his actions and had a history of criminal behaviour. The court also found that there was a link between the cultivation of narcotic plants and the murder, as the proceeds from the cultivation were used to fund the murder. The court considered the appellant's cognitive ability and psychological state but found that they did not mitigate his culpability for the crimes. The court ultimately determined that a life sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the crimes and the appellant's lack of remorse.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court also ordered that the appellant be sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment for the cultivation of narcotic plants and handling stolen goods. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders