JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 June 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cameron
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 334

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Accused stabbed domestic partner numerous times to head and neck – Victim scared of accused in days leading up to murder – Attempts to hide body and set fire to crime scene – Admissions by accused but false account provided in explanation for commencement of attack – Plea of guilty in Supreme Court at second directions hearing – False account persisted in at plea - No remorse – Long criminal history, including for violence – No Verdins issues – Standard sentence offence – Serious example of offence – High moral culpability – Just punishment – Denunciation – General deterrence – Specific deterrence - Protection of community – Sentence of 29 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 27 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Glynn with Mr C McConaghy	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A Lewis with Mr G Nikolovski	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Scott Cameron, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Dannyll Ann Goodsell, and admitted prior convictions contained in a criminal record filed in this case.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Murder is a standard sentence offence with a standard sentence of 25 years.

Background to the crime

Dannyll Goodsell was 33 years old at the time she met her violent death at your hands on 5 October 2018. She had commenced a relationship with you about three months before, and you had moved in to live with her at 1 Kenworthy Place, Mount Pleasant (‘the home address’). She was the mother of two children.

There was little material before the Court to reveal the nature of your relationship with Ms Goodsell before you murdered her. Such material as there was, touching on events which took place, and things said and done by Ms Goodsell and you in the few days preceding her death, revealed that Ms Goodsell was very frightened of you. Later events proved that she had every reason to be.

There are indications that you and Ms Goodsell were arguing in the days leading up to your crime.

On the night of Wednesday 3 October 2018, in text messages she exchanged with her friend Christopher Kinna, Ms Goodsell informed him that you were restricting her movements and had damaged her mobile phone by bending it. She told Kinna that she was not able to meet him, and that he should be careful what he wrote to her.

On Thursday 4 October 2018, at about 1.00 pm,…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2020] VSC 334
Case: [2020] VSC 334
Decision Date: 5 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cameron, the defendant was convicted of murdering his domestic partner. The victim had been stabbed numerous times in the head and neck. The accused attempted to hide the body and set fire to the crime scene. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key legal issues involved determining the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder, considering the defendant's plea of guilty, his criminal history, and the circumstances of the offence.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, his admissions and lack of remorse, and the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and protection of the community. The court noted that the offence was a serious example of murder, with high moral culpability, and that the defendant had a long criminal history, including for violence. The court also considered the defendant's plea of guilty, which resulted in a reduced sentence.

After considering all of the factors, the court sentenced the defendant to 29 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 23 years. The court noted that, but for the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been 34 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 27 years. The court considered this sentence to be just and appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the need to protect the community from the defendant's future offending. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the defendant's lack of remorse and his false account of the events leading up to the murder.

Orders