R v Bufton - [2019] VSC 621

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0283

THE QUEEN
v
JANICE JOY BUFTON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 August 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bufton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 621

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Murder – Accused ran over her partner in the driveway of her home due to extreme anger over his refusal to talk to her – False account given to police and persisted in at trial – No remorse – No prior convictions – Previous cancer diagnosis and prospect of recurrence – Serious example of offence – High moral culpability - Just punishment – Denunciation – General deterrence – Sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Armstrong	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Danos	Irwin & Irwin Law

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Janice Joy Bufton, after a trial in the Supreme Court at Horsham in May of this year which ran for 11 hearing days, you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Colin Geoffrey Snooks in Fyans Creek on 30 October 2017.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Background

You and Mr Snooks had been in a relationship from January 2016 until the time of his death. The relationship was a most turbulent one, involving many arguments and periods of separation. From as early as April 2016, as indicated by some diary entries you made which were tendered in evidence, you were frustrated, concerned and insecure about the behaviour of Mr Snooks towards you, and in particular, what you saw as his refusal or failure to commit to you. You also harboured some feelings of jealousy. You told police, for example, in the interview which was conducted after your commission of the crime, that you liked things to be open and honest, and did not like secrets. You said:

I don’t like things behind my back…All I ever wanted to do with Colin was sit down and get the truth out of him and all he’d ever do is run away every time…I didn’t know whether he was lying or not, I just wanted to know whether he was committed to the relationship or not…He said he loved me more than he loved anybody else and all this sort of thing, but…his actions didn’t back it up, I don’t think.[1]

[1]Excerpts from police interview.

For periods of time, Mr Snooks lived with you at your rural property in Fyans Creek and had his possessions, including his caravan, stored there. At other times, he would live away from you, often in his caravan at Green Hill Lake Reserve (‘Green Hill’) in Ararat.

Commencing just before Christmas 2016, there was one such period during which Mr Snooks lived in his caravan for some months at Green…

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 Bufton

Details

AGLC: R v Bufton [2019] VSC 621
Case: [2019] VSC 621
Decision Date: 13 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bufton, was convicted of murdering her partner by running him over in the driveway of her home. This was a result of extreme anger due to his refusal to talk to her. She gave a false account to the police and persisted in this account during the trial, showing no remorse. Bufton had no prior convictions but had a previous cancer diagnosis with the prospect of recurrence. The case came before the court for sentencing, where the nature and severity of the offence, the moral culpability of the offender, and the need for punishment and deterrence were considered.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the appellant's lack of remorse, the false account given to the police, and her previous health issues. The court had to balance the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and just punishment with the personal circumstances of the appellant. The court also had to consider the appropriate non-parole period to ensure the safety of the community and the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that the offence was a serious example of murder, with high moral culpability due to the appellant's extreme anger and lack of remorse. The court acknowledged the appellant's previous health issues but found that these did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The court determined that a sentence of 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years was appropriate. This sentence reflected the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and just punishment, while also considering the appellant's personal circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. This sentence was intended to reflect the gravity of the offence, the appellant's moral culpability, and the need for punishment and deterrence. The sentence also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including her previous health issues.

Orders