JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	24 and 29 June; 19 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Coombes
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 407

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Victim strangled – Post-offence aggravation by dismembering victim’s body – Two previous murder convictions – Verdins considerations not applicable – Lack of remorse – No significant prospect of rehabilitation – Discount for guilty plea inappropriate – Discount for cooperation with authorities inappropriate – Serious violent offender – Sentence of life imprisonment without parole – Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6D and 6E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC with Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D P Moen	Michael J Gleeson & Assoc

HIS HONOUR:

John Leslie Coombes you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Raechel Betts at Wimbledon Heights, Phillip Island on or about 12 August 2009 and you have been convicted of the offence. It falls to me to sentence you.

The facts

Raechel Betts was born on 5 January 1982. She was a qualified school teacher with additional early learning qualifications and, up until the end of 2008 or thereabouts, she was employed as an early learning teacher and in the child care industry.

Some years before her death, she was engaged to be married. During the engagement, she learned that she might not be able to bear children even though she wanted them very much. She seems therefore to have devoted herself to the care of other peoples’ children as a substitute for having her own. A couple of years before her death, she met two young girls – PJ, who was then 15 years old and TJ who was 13 years old – and took on the role of their primary carer and mother figure. With the girls’ parents’ consent, and the approbation of school authorities, the girls moved in with the deceased and the deceased’s friend, Deanne Royal, at a Heidelberg address.

At some stage, the deceased began to sell drugs. At least to begin with, she did so only in a small sort of way. But later the scale of her dealing increased. At about the end of 2008, she ceased to be employed in the child care industry and from about the start of 2009, her full time occupation became one of trafficking in methylamphetamine, MDMA, cannabis and other drugs of dependence.

In February 2009, the deceased, Deanne Royal and the two girls, moved to a Doncaster East address. The deceased conducted drug transactions from those premises, assisted by one Romeo Siciliano, with whom for some time she also had a sexual relationship. You were then one of the deceased’s suppliers of drugs of dependence.

While living at the Doncaster East…

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 Coombes

Details

AGLC: R v Coombes [2011] VSC 407
Case: [2011] VSC 407
Decision Date: 26 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coombes, the appellant was convicted of murder after strangling the victim and subsequently dismembering the body. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the appropriate sentencing for the appellant's heinous crimes. The appellant had two prior convictions for murder, which compounded the gravity of the present offence. The court was tasked with determining a suitable sentence, considering the severity of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the factors influencing the potential for rehabilitation and remorse.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate weight to be given to the post-offence aggravation by dismembering the victim's body, the appellant's prior criminal history, and the lack of remorse shown. The court also had to consider whether any discounts should apply for the appellant's guilty plea or cooperation with authorities. The court found that, given the circumstances, the Verdins considerations did not apply, and the appellant's prior convictions and the nature of the crime warranted a severe sentence. The court concluded that there was no significant prospect of rehabilitation and that the appellant had shown no remorse for his actions.

The court held that the appropriate sentence for the appellant was life imprisonment without parole. The severity of the crime, the appellant's prior criminal history, and the lack of remorse weighed heavily in favour of a severe sentence. The court determined that a discount for the guilty plea or cooperation with authorities was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the appellant was a serious violent offender, and the sentence of life imprisonment without parole was necessary to protect the community and deter similar offences. The court's decision was based on sections 6D and 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Orders