R v Butay - [2001] VSC 417

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1425 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JESUS BUTAY

---

JUDGE:	Flatman J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 November 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Butay
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 417	Revised 6 February 2002

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Manslaughter - Provocation

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr John Dickson QC Mr Kevin Armstrong	Kay Robertson Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Michael Bourke	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Jesus Butay, you are presented in this Court on a count that at Werribee, in the State of Victoria, on 23 June 2000, you murdered your wife, Ruth Butay.

The jury found you not guilty of that charge, but guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter. Manslaughter was put to the jury as being murder reduced to manslaughter by way of provocation. In this case, the provocation was said to be verbal taunts and humiliations made to you by your wife at the time of the break up of your marriage. I consider that it would be reasonable to interpret the verdict as a finding by the jury that whilst you intended to kill your wife, there was the reasonable possibility that the provocative words were spoken and the fact that you acted under provocation as it is understood by the law could not be excluded.

The circumstances surrounding the commission of this crime have been canvassed in the trial, but it is important to refer to them so that the full context in which this crime took place can be properly understood. You married Ruth Amores in February 1989 in Bankstown, New South Wales. In 1991, you both bought the house in Oriel Drive, Werribee, where you lived until June 2000. By June of that year, your marriage was in difficulties. Your wife had left the home on 12 June 2000 and lived for a week with a Mrs Conarty. Your wife left a note, "I have done everything I can but the marriage is over". Later, at a meeting with your relative, Gil Tabios, she again made it clear that the marriage was at an end. All of the evidence would suggest that she had clearly decided to leave you, but that she wanted the separation to be as amicable as possible.

For your part, you refused to accept that state of affairs. Although on the face of it you assisted in preparing the house for sale, you hoped to get back with your wife. You were concerned that there may be someone else in her life and you sought to enlist the help of neighbours, Mr and Mrs Awwad, to watch your wife and keep a list of her comings and goings to and from the house at Oriel Drive.

On 23 June 2000, Ruth organised a meeting between you and Scott Stevenson. This meeting was said to be…

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 Butay

Details

AGLC: R v Butay [2001] VSC 417
Case: [2001] VSC 417
Decision Date: 2 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Butay involved the defendant, Butay, who was charged with manslaughter following a fatal altercation. The incident occurred in a heated argument which escalated into violence, resulting in the death of the victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted manslaughter under the provocation defence. The court had to determine if the defendant's actions were a reasonable response to the provocation he had experienced.

The court carefully considered the evidence and the circumstances of the incident. It assessed whether the defendant had acted in the heat of the moment, under a significant degree of provocation, and if a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have responded similarly. The court examined the severity of the provocation, the immediacy of the defendant's response, and the extent to which the defendant's actions were proportionate to the situation. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's actions were not a reasonable response to the provocation, and therefore, the defence of provocation was not applicable. Consequently, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the degree of fault and the impact on the victim's family. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and deterring similar conduct in the community. The final orders included the defendant's conviction for manslaughter and the imposition of a specific sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offence.

Orders