R v Conway - [2002] VSC 486

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1471 of 2001

THE QUEEN

MIDAS CONWAY

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12, 19-23 August 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 November 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Midas Conway
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 486

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Murder of former fiancee – Jealousy and resentment – 19 years prison – 14 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S Cooper with Mr A MacNab	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Montgomery	Joannidis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

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 fiancee. You had met her in 1999. A relationship was quickly established. In August 1999, the two of you became engaged to be married. The two of you were then living in a unit in Mentone. In January 2000, your plans to marry were disrupted. You were charged with offences relating to illegal drugs. You were remanded in custody. Those charges are still to be dealt with by the courts. You remained on remand until 9 October 2000.

When you first went to prison, Lisa Richardson visited you regularly. By the middle of the year 2000 her visits were further apart. As time passed, her attitude to you changed. Another man, a Rino Salpietro, had come into her life. She established a relationship with Salpietro. The time came when she told you that she had met Salpietro. Independently, you received confirmation of his being on the scene from other sources. To you, she downplayed her feelings for him. You were nevertheless devastated at the turn of events. You became depressed. Your depression was such as to necessitate you receiving treatment in prison. Lisa Richardson did not discontinue visiting you in prison. It was, nevertheless, still clear that the position between the two of you was no longer as before.

On 9 October 2000, you were released on bail. Shortly before that, Lisa Richardson communicated to you that, on your release, she would not have you back at the Mentone unit. She returned your engagement ring and some belongings. When you got out of prison, you went to live with your mother and sister. Two days after leaving prison, you went unannounced to the Mentone unit. Lisa Richardson was not there. You spoke with the two women who were then sharing the unit with her. While there, you arranged to meet with her the next day. At the unit, you saw a photograph of Lisa Richardson with Rino Salpietro. You noted her obvious happy appearance. The next day you went to meet her at a jeans shop in Mentone. She had an interest in the shop. She worked there at times. She had arranged for others to be in the…

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 [2002] VSC 486
Case: [2002] VSC 486
Decision Date: 14 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Conway involved the sentencing of the defendant, Conway, for the murder of his former fiancée. The High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the appropriate punishment for this crime, which arose out of deep-seated feelings of jealousy and resentment towards the victim. The central issue was the determination of a fair and just sentence, considering the heinous nature of the offence and the emotional turmoil that led to it.

The court had to address the appropriate weight to be given to the mitigating factors of the defendant's emotional state and the impact of the relationship's breakdown, as well as the gravity of the crime itself. It was necessary to balance these considerations against the imperative of ensuring public safety and delivering a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the murder. The court also needed to consider the implications of the non-parole period in relation to the overall sentence, ensuring that it was both punitive and rehabilitative.

In delivering its judgment, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the murder and the defendant's responsibility for his actions. Despite acknowledging the mitigating factors, the court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was inadequate in reflecting the severity of the crime. The High Court accordingly increased the overall sentence to 19 years with a non-parole period of 14 years, reflecting a balance between punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The decision underscored the importance of a sentence that not only punishes the offender but also serves to deter similar crimes in the future.

The final orders of the court confirmed the new sentence of 19 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, ensuring that the defendant's punishment aligns with the gravity of his actions while also considering the circumstances that led to the crime.

Orders