R v Butler - [2009] VSC 630

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1430 of 2009

THE QUEEN

LAWRENCE ALEXANDER BUTLER

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATES OF HEARING:	29, 30 September, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 October – Trial, Plea 30 November 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 December 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Butler
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 630

---

Murder, body destroyed, sentence 23 years, minimum of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr BF Kissane	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr M Lavery	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Lawrence Alexander Butler, you have been found guilty of the murder of Trevor John Tascas at Whittington, between the 5th and 12th day of October 2005. You pleaded not guilty and a trial was conducted. The matter was adjourned until 30 November 2009, at the request of your counsel, to enable a psychological report to be prepared.

You are currently aged 46 years of age, having been born on 17 October 1963 and your last occupation was as a safety consultant / trainer and you were residing at No.4 Thatcher Court in Whittington, the scene of the murder.

The deceased man, Trevor Tascas, was born in Geelong in January of 1978, the only son of Pamela Tascas and Joe Van der Weel. He went by the name of both Trevor Tascas and Trevor Van der Weel.

After leaving secondary school in Geelong, he went to Queensland for approximately a year, before returning back to Victoria and living mainly in the Geelong region. He began a relationship with a woman, by the name of Nicole Riley and together, they moved into a residential property at 338 Anakie Road in Norlane. That was a property owned by Trevor Tascas' uncle, Neil Grayson.

The circumstances under which they moved into the premises were, that the premises were being purchased by Neil Grayson and he was making the repayments on the mortgage. Trevor Tascas and Nicole Riley were to take over the repayments and continue to pay off the property, which they did for a while. After a period of time, Trevor Tascas became unemployed and the relationship with Nicole Riley broke down and he ceased making repayments on the mortgage.

The first that Mr Grayson became aware of this failure to make the repayments was, when he received notification from the bank that they intended to repossess the home. After a considerable deal of argument, between the deceased and Mr Grayson, his uncle reluctantly agreed to pay him a sum of around $30,000, for him to vacate the premises and allow his uncle to resume occupation of the premises, which was done ultimately, by his uncle's daughter.

It was around August of 2005 that he left those premises in Anakie Road and moved into premises, occupied by you, at 4 Thatcher Court in Whittington. You were residing there, in your mother's house, although your mother was not living there…

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 Butler

Details

AGLC: R v Butler [2009] VSC 630
Case: [2009] VSC 630
Decision Date: 15 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Butler involved the accused, Butler, who was on trial for the murder of an individual. The body of the deceased was not found, having been destroyed by Butler in an attempt to conceal the crime. The matter was brought before the court for determination of Butler's culpability and subsequent sentencing. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Butler's actions constituted murder, given the absence of a body and the destruction of evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentence and minimum term of imprisonment to be imposed.

In addressing these issues, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the murder. The court concluded that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to establish Butler's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of the body did not preclude a finding of murder, as the court found that Butler's actions in destroying the body were indicative of an intent to conceal the crime. The court also considered the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution in determining the sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Butler to 23 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 20 years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society.

The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the prosecution had discharged the onus of proof, and that Butler's actions were consistent with the elements of murder. The sentence imposed was considered appropriate given the nature of the crime and the need to balance the interests of justice with the principles of punishment and rehabilitation. The court's ruling provides a clear precedent for similar cases involving murder and the destruction of evidence.

Orders