R v Davey - [2006] VSC 173

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1409 of 2005

THE QUEEN

OWEN JAMES DAVEY

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 APRIL 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 MAY 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	THE QUEEN v OWEN DAVEY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 173

---

Sentence – Murder – No direct link between psychiatric condition and offence – Sentenced to 18 years non-parole period of 15 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Montgomery	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Owen James Davey, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Athanasia Wust on 12 July 2004 at Rye. Your plea was entered after evidence was given to the Court by Dr Daniel Sullivan, a consulting psychiatrist that you were fit to plead. His evidence was based on consultations he had had with you commencing on 2 May 2005. Your plea was further entered after you had received advice from very experienced and competent senior counsel.

At the date of her death Athanasia was aged 37. She was the mother of two sons, Ben, the son of Robert Wust, who was aged 6 at that point in time and Alexander, who was your son and who was then aged 17 months.

You were living with Athanasia and her two sons in a house at Rye.

You had first met Athanasia in late 2001 at Frankston Psychiatric Hospital. She had suffered difficulties following the sudden death of her father and was diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder. After discharge from hospital the relationship with her husband deteriorated and she formed a new relationship with you.

The relationship between you and Athanasia caused tensions with her family and at the time of her death her contact with her family was by telephone only.

On the afternoon of Monday 12 July 2004 Athanasia collected her son Ben from primary school and returned home. At about 6.45 p.m. Ben sought help in the Rye shopping centre and as a result police attended the family home at about 7.20 p.m. On arrival police found Athanasia's body on the loungeroom floor. She had suffered multiple stab wounds and lay in a welter of blood. The handle and blade of a broken knife were found nearby. Alexander was found unhurt but covered in blood in the kitchen.

An autopsy subsequently showed that Athanasia had suffered some 40 stab wounds to the head and neck, concentrated primarily upon the area of the eyes and face. There were also some nine defence type wounds including full thickness stab wounds through the right hand. Athanasia died from the loss of blood caused by the wounds. The wounds were inflicted by you in what must have been a sustained frenzied and relentlessly savage attack. Further, they were inflicted when both boys were present in the house.

You fled the scene after the stabbing and…

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 Davey

Details

AGLC: R v Davey [2006] VSC 173
Case: [2006] VSC 173
Decision Date: 3 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Davey, the defendant stood trial for the murder of an individual. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's psychiatric condition, which included schizophrenia, could be considered in mitigation of the severity of the sentence. The defence argued that the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence should be a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court had to decide whether there was a direct link between the defendant's psychiatric condition and the commission of the murder. If such a link existed, it could potentially reduce the severity of the sentence. The prosecution maintained that the defendant was fully aware of the nature and consequences of his actions, despite his mental health issues. The court examined the evidence and the defendant's history to determine if his condition played a substantial role in the offence.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that there was no direct link between the defendant's psychiatric condition and the commission of the murder. The defendant was found to have been aware of the nature of his actions and their consequences, and therefore, his psychiatric condition did not mitigate the severity of the sentence. The court sentenced the defendant to 18 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years.

Orders