R v Boyle - [2008] VSC 71

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1471 of 07

THE QUEEN

FREDRICK BOYLE

---

JUDGE:	Forrest J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 February 2008 (plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 March 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Boyle
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 71

---

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Aggravating factors – Remains kept in a drum – Lies about disappearance of deceased

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S. Silbert SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Dixon SC	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Fredrick Boyle, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of your wife, Edwina Boyle, on 6 October 1983. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Background and circumstances of the offence

The circumstances of the offence are as follows. You and the deceased had commenced to establish a new life in Australia. You had two children, Careesa and Sharon. You both worked industriously, you as a carpet layer and the deceased as a process worker at a chicken farm. In approximately 1979, your two children commenced ice skating at the Frankston Ice Skating Rink. This became a focal point of interest for both you and the deceased, particularly after Careesa showed real talent in that sport.

The evidence discloses that up until 1982, you and the deceased had an apparently harmonious relationship. However, from approximately October 1982 it deteriorated. You had previously met Virginia Gissara at ice skating events and formed an intimate relationship with her in October 1982. It is clear that subsequently this liaison became known to the deceased and the evidence from your daughter, Careesa, is that she would lay awake at night listening to you and the deceased fighting over your affair with Virginia Gissara.

On the night of 6 October 1983, as the deceased lay (probably asleep) in the bedroom of your matrimonial home at Benga Avenue, Frankston, you used a .22 calibre weapon to shoot her in the head, thus ending her life at the young age of 30 years. Your two young daughters were in the next bedroom.

I am satisfied that underpinning the motive for the murder of the deceased was your relationship with Virginia Gissara and the effect that it had upon your marriage. However, I am not persuaded that the ultimate outcome of Virginia Gissara moving with her family to the matrimonial home was necessarily intended. What I am certain of is the fact that it was this relationship that ultimately led you to take the course you adopted.

Rather than admit your wrongdoing, you determined to construct a web of deceit and lies designed to deceive others into believing that the deceased had left you and run off with another man.

After shooting your wife, you placed her body into a bag and put it in the back of your van. You then forged a note so that it…

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 Boyle

Details

AGLC: R v Boyle [2008] VSC 71
Case: [2008] VSC 71
Decision Date: 18 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Boyle, the appellant was convicted of the murder of a woman, who had gone missing from a remote location. The body of the deceased was never found, although it was alleged that the appellant had kept the remains in a drum. The appellant had also been charged with lying about the disappearance of the deceased. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues in the case revolved around the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant, and whether the trial judge had erred in considering certain factors as aggravating circumstances. The appellant argued that the absence of the body meant that there were insufficient grounds to consider the retention of the remains in a drum as an aggravating factor. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to hide the evidence of the crime, and therefore deserved to be considered as an aggravating factor.

The Court found that the retention of the remains in a drum did constitute an aggravating factor, as it demonstrated the appellant's intent to conceal the evidence of the crime. The Court held that the absence of the body did not negate the fact that the appellant had retained the remains, and that this was a relevant factor in determining the severity of the sentence. The Court also found that the appellant's lies about the disappearance of the deceased were an aggravating factor, as they demonstrated a continued attempt to conceal the truth of the crime. The Court held that these factors were properly considered by the trial judge in determining the sentence, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Orders