R v Crosbie - [2003] VSC 69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1480 of 2002

THE QUEEN

LLOYD MAURICE CROSBIE

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October, 2002, 6 March 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 March 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Crosbie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 69

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Double murder – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Youthful offender – Life sentence – Non-parole period fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Amad	Amad and Amad

HIS HONOUR:

You, Lloyd Maurice Crosbie, have pleaded guilty to two counts of murder, your victims being Melissa Joy Maahs, who was then aged 19 years, and her mother, Kaye Lucy Maahs, who was then aged 54 years. The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment.

You are now aged 20 years, having been born on 16 April 1982. The murders to which you have pleaded guilty took place in the early hours of Saturday 18 August 2001.

You had commenced a relationship with Melissa Maahs during the year 2000 and during that year you and she commenced to live together at your father’s residence in Morwell.

Subsequently, and between 5 November 2000 and April 2001, you and Melissa lived together in a Ministry of Housing home at 2 Buna Street, Morwell. On 8 April 2001, the pair of you went to live with Melissa’s mother, Kaye Maahs, at 22 Dayble Street, Morwell. There, you and Melissa occupied a second bedroom. There is nothing before me to say that the relationship that you had with both your victims up until the night of the murders was anything other than close, in the case of Melissa, and cordial and affectionate, in the case of her mother.

At approximately 3.00 a.m. on Saturday 18 August 2001, you and Melissa occupied a double bed in the second bedroom of 22 Dayble Street, Morwell. Melissa was asleep, lying face down on your right-hand side. You were watching a movie. You were wearing a pair of corduroy pants and attached to the front of the pants was a scabbard containing a skinning knife. The knife in question had a curved blade approximately 80 millimetres in length. Whilst watching the movie you looked down at Melissa and whilst she was asleep you removed the knife from the scabbard. You held the knife in your right hand, and using a downward motion, stabbed her three times in the head. Your victim, Melissa, was woken by these blows and began to scream.

You then took hold of the back of her head with your left hand, and with the knife held in your right hand, repeatedly inflicted stab wounds to her throat. It is clear that Melissa attempted to defend herself by pushing you away. In the course of this action she suffered cuts to her hands. After receiving several stab…

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 Crosbie

Details

AGLC: R v Crosbie [2003] VSC 69
Case: [2003] VSC 69
Decision Date: 11 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crosbie, the appellant, Crosbie, stood convicted of the double murder of two individuals. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Crosbie, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. Crosbie, a youthful offender at the time of the commission of the crimes, faced the prospect of a life sentence, with the court needing to decide on the non-parole period.

The central legal issues before the court involved the appropriate weight to be given to Crosbie's youth and the factors that should influence the setting of the non-parole period. The court was required to balance the gravity of the crimes with the mitigating circumstances of Crosbie's age and background. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, particularly in cases where the offender is young.

In delivering its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of individualising the sentencing process to reflect the circumstances of each case. It recognised the significant impact of Crosbie's youth and the potential for rehabilitation. However, it also acknowledged the heinous nature of the crimes and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offences. The court concluded that a life sentence was appropriate, but it fixed the non-parole period at a term that took into account Crosbie's age and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Crosbie was to serve a life sentence for the murders, with a non-parole period set at a specific number of years, reflecting the court's careful consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders