JUDGE:	Taylor JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 September 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cohrs
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 617

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Convicted after trial – Pre-meditated shooting – Victim the mother of accused – Victim shot in her own home – Four year old child present in house at the time of shooting – Killing motivated by anger and embitterment – Standard sentence offence – Accused suffers delusional disorder – Verdins – Accused suffers a number of physical ailments – Denunciation – Deterrence – Sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 23 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Mahady with Ms C Richardson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Richter with Mr J McGarvie	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Paul Anthony Cohrs, you were convicted by a jury of the murder of Bette Cohrs-Schulz.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[1]
[1]Murder is a Category 1 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘Act’). It is also a standard sentence offence. The standard sentence for murder is 25 years. This is considered further below.

Summary of offending

Bette Cohrs-Schulz was your mother. On 30 October 2018 you attended at her home in Red Cliffs, near Mildura, armed with a 12-gauge double barrel shotgun. Mrs Cohrs-Schulz had recently returned home from shopping with her four year old great grandson B, who is also your grandson. When the child was in the bathroom, you entered the kitchen, aimed and discharged the weapon at your mother. The shot impacted the upper left side of her chest. The shot was fatal.

Surrounding circumstances

It was not the first time that day that you had fatally shot a member of your family. About an hour and a half earlier you had used the same firearm to kill your brother, Raymond Cohrs, at Lake Victoria Station in New South Wales.

The murder of your mother – and the issues presented in this sentencing exercise – cannot be understood without reference to the circumstances in which you killed your brother.[2] In so saying, I emphasise that no part of the sentence I will impose upon you for the death of Bette Cohrs-Schulz is referrable to your actions in killing Raymond.
[2]The trial was conducted on this basis. Agreed facts relevant to the circumstances of both deaths were led before the jury pursuant to the Evidence Act 2008, s 191.

Family businesses

In the 1970s your parents established a business called Sunraysia Roofing in Mildura and Red Cliffs. You, along with your siblings, later worked for the business. Your father committed suicide in 1984. Thereafter Raymond Cohrs managed the business in conjunction with your mother. The business was successful. Over time other companies…

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 Cohrs

Details

AGLC: R v Cohrs [2024] VSC 617
Case: [2024] VSC 617
Decision Date: 9 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cohrs, was convicted of the murder of his mother, the victim, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the pre-meditated shooting of the victim, which occurred in her own home with a four-year-old child present at the time of the crime. The accused, motivated by anger and embitterment, shot his mother during the commission of a standard sentence offence. The court had to consider the accused's mental health, which included a delusional disorder, and his physical ailments, alongside the principles of denunciation and deterrence in determining an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues involved in this appeal were the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case. The court needed to balance the severity of the crime, the accused's mental health, and his physical conditions against the need for denunciation and deterrence. The accused's delusional disorder and physical ailments were significant mitigating factors, but they were weighed against the heinous nature of the crime and the need to protect society.

The court found that while the accused's delusional disorder and physical ailments were significant mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the gravity of the crime. The pre-meditated nature of the murder, the presence of a child in the house, and the relationship between the victim and the accused were all heavily considered. The court determined that a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years was appropriate, ensuring that the sentence met the objectives of denunciation and deterrence while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders confirmed the sentence of 30 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years. The court rejected the appeal, affirming that the sentence was just and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The sentence was intended to serve both as a denunciation of the crime and as a deterrent against similar acts in the future.

Orders