R v Brew - [2013] VSC 131

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2011 0170

THE QUEEN

DOUGLAS GEORGE BREW

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN JA
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 March 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Brew
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 131

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Attempted murder – Intentionally cause injury – Premeditated act – Spousal revenge – Limited prior convictions – Longstanding history of depression – Terminal illness – Extent of remorse – Gravity of offence – General and specific deterrence – Total effective sentence 10 ½ years – Non-parole period 8 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Tiwana	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Douglas George Brew you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder and one charge of intentionally causing injury.

The maximum penalty for the first offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and for the second offence it is 10 years’ imprisonment.

In 2010 your wife of some 30 years formed a relationship with one Shingles whilst you were travelling around Australia by yourself in a motor home. She telephoned you in Perth to tell you that she intended to separate from you and when you enquired whether she was in a new relationship told you that it was none of your business.

You returned to Victoria temporarily in late 2010 and sought to re-establish the marital relationship but your wife met you and told you that the marriage was over.

After meeting with her you subsequently questioned your wife about her new relationship on the telephone and she again told you it was none of your business.

You then returned to Western Australia but came back to Geelong in early June 2011. Once again, you tried to repair your marriage and once again your wife told you that it was over.

On 8 July 2011 you asked your wife to lend you $300 so that you could pay for a hire car whilst your van was being repaired. She had previously lent you money and again agreed that she would put $300 in the meter box of your former matrimonial home for you to collect. At the time your son lived at this address and your wife although resident elsewhere called in regularly to collect her mail.

On 11 July 2011 at about 11:00 in the morning your wife went to the house with her new partner. He stayed in the car whilst she went to the front door. Prior to putting the money in the meter box she decided to check whether there was any mail in the house. On entering the house she walked down the hallway and heard a noise. She turned to see you running towards her with a knife in your hand. You told her you were going to kill her. You then stabbed her in the groin area causing a…

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 Brew

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Brew [2013] VSC 131
Case: [2013] VSC 131
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Case of R v Brew, the appellant was charged with attempted murder following a premeditated act intended to cause serious injury to the respondent, his spouse. The respondent survived the attack but suffered severe injuries. The appellant, who had a limited history of prior convictions and a longstanding history of depression, was motivated by revenge. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for the attempted murder, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances, the extent of his remorse, and the need for both general and specific deterrence.

The High Court examined the principles of sentencing for serious violent crimes, particularly focusing on the principles of proportionality and the need to balance punishment with rehabilitation. The court considered the appellant's limited criminal history, his mental health issues, and his expression of remorse. However, the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence were also significant factors. The court concluded that an effective sentence of 10 ½ years, with a non-parole period of 8 years, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the severity of the crime, the need to protect society, and the appellant's personal circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the importance of considering both the individual characteristics of the offender and the broader societal implications of the sentence. The court held that while the appellant's personal circumstances, including his mental health and expression of remorse, were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the need for general and specific deterrence. The sentence imposed was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence, deter the appellant and others from committing similar crimes, and provide an opportunity for the appellant to rehabilitate while serving his sentence.

Orders