R v Conway - [2005] VSC 205

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1471 of 2001

THE QUEEN

MIDAS CONWAY

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1-13 APRIL 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 JUNE 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v CONWAY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 205

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder of former fiancée – Male possessive rage - 19 years' imprisonment – 14 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C. Quin	Mr Steven Milesi
For the Accused	Dr G.J. Lyon	Ms N. Buccheri

HIS HONOUR:

Midas Conway, in a trial conducted before Teague J, a jury found you guilty of the murder of Lisa Richardson on 18 October 2000. You sought to rely upon the lawful justification or excuse of provocation, but his Honour took that matter away from the jury. Justice Teague sentenced you to 19 years' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of 14 years.

You appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal against your conviction. The Court of Appeal decided that the question of provocation should have been allowed to go to the jury, and ordered that you be retried. That retrial occurred before me and you were allowed to rely upon provocation. The new jury again found you guilty of the murder of Ms Richardson. It rejected your reliance upon provocation.

Neither you nor the prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal against the sentence that Teague J imposed upon you. You did not contend that it was manifestly excessive. The prosecution did not content that it was manifestly inadequate.

I am not bound to follow the sentence that Teague J imposed. I must decide independently the sentence that justice requires. However, in the circumstances that I have just described, there would need to be significant reasons for departing from the sentence imposed upon Teague J.

The principle submission made by your counsel, Dr Lyon, was that you should not receive a heavier sentence than that previously imposed. I accept that submission. Dr Lyon made a subsidiary submission that there were factors by which the previous sentence could be mitigated. There are some such factors and I have considered them. I have, however, come to the conclusion that they are not sufficient to warrant a departure from the earlier sentence. I will now explain my reasons for this in more detail.

The circumstances in which you committed the murder of Ms Richardson were described in the sentence of Teague J. This description was consistent with the evidence presented at the second trial before me and I gratefully adopt it. I set out below in full the reasons for sentence of Teague J[1]:
[1]([2002] VSC 486, 14 November 2002)

"Midas Conway. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Lisa Richardson on 18 October 2000. As at that time, Lisa Richardson had been, but no longer was your fiancée. You had met her in 1999.…

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 Conway

Details

AGLC: R v Conway [2005] VSC 205
Case: [2005] VSC 205
Decision Date: 10 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Conway involved the defendant, Conway, who was convicted of murdering his former fiancée. The matter was brought before the court to determine an appropriate sentence for the crime. The court was tasked with considering the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the murder, and the appropriate length and conditions of the sentence.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the severity of the crime and the appropriate sentence, including whether a non-parole period should be imposed. The court considered factors such as the nature of the crime, Conway's criminal history, the circumstances leading up to the murder, and the impact of the crime on the victim and her family. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

In reaching its decision, the court noted the extreme nature of the crime and the loss of life. The court found that Conway's actions were driven by male possessive rage and that the murder was premeditated and deliberate. The court considered the severity of the crime and imposed a sentence of 19 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The court believed that this sentence would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and provide a sufficient deterrent to others who might consider committing similar crimes. The court also took into account the potential for Conway to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society after serving the non-parole period.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of 19 years' imprisonment for Conway, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The court also ordered that Conway be subject to other conditions, such as supervision and monitoring, upon his release from prison. The court's decision was based on the need to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders