R v Davies - [2017] VSC 800

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

SCR 2017 0088

THE QUEEN
v
GREGORY KEITH DAVIES	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 December 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Davies
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 800

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder - Rape - Pleas of Guilty – Victim a child chosen at random - Offending occurred in 1984 – Prisoner now aged 75 years – Denial of involvement - Claimed absence of memory of offences - Absence of – Custodial conditions – Prisoner attacked and injured in custody – Extra curial punishment – Denunciation – Just punishment – General deterrence – Specific deterrence less significant - Sentence of life imprisonment - Non-parole period fixed – Considerations in fixing – Mercy.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr David Gibson	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Gregory Keith Davies, on 27 November 2017 you pleaded guilty in this Court to two offences on an indictment. Charge 1 is a charge of the murder of Kylie Maybury on 6 November 1984. Charge 2 is a charge of the rape of Kylie Maybury, also committed on 6 November 1984.

The maximum penalty for murder is, and was at the relevant time, life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for rape contrary to common law at the time you committed the offence was 10 years imprisonment, pursuant to the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980.[1] That maximum penalty is only to be increased where there is evidence available to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of aggravating circumstances.[2] The Senior Crown Prosecutor on your plea conceded that, in this case, none are able to be proved.
[1]Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980 (Vic) s 45(1).
[2]Ibid s 45(3).

On 27 November 2017, I heard an opening address and submissions from the Senior Crown Prosecutor. I also heard a plea from Mr Gibson of counsel on your behalf.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these offences.

Circumstances of offending

On 6 November 1984, which was Melbourne Cup Day, the mother of Kylie Maybury, Julie Ryan and her sister had been to a local hotel in the Preston area where they had lunch and watched the Melbourne Cup on a large screen television. They left the hotel shortly after the running of the Cup and travelling via Thornbury, arrived home at Unit 6/35 Gregory Road in East Preston at about 4.30pm.

Kylie Maybury was 6 years old at the time and was with her mother on that day. Kylie was in Grade 1 at Primary School. After returning home, they went to a neighbour’s place for a cup of tea. They then again returned to their own place. While Julie Ryan was talking on the phone to her mother, Kylie was asked to go to a nearby shop to buy a bag…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2017] VSC 800
Case: [2017] VSC 800
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Davies, the defendant faced charges of murder and rape, having pleaded guilty to the crimes. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The deceased was a child who was chosen at random, and the crimes occurred in 1984. The defendant, now aged 75, had previously denied any involvement in the offences and claimed to have no memory of the events. However, these denials were not accepted by the court.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the crimes, the age of the defendant, and the circumstances of the offending. The court also had to consider the principles of denunciation, just punishment, general deterrence, and specific deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence and non-parole period. Furthermore, the court had to balance these factors with considerations of mercy and the defendant's current health and age.

The court held that the defendant's crimes were of the utmost gravity, and that the principles of denunciation and general deterrence required a significant punishment. However, the court also took into account the defendant's age and health, as well as the fact that he had shown remorse for his crimes. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court considered this to be an appropriate balance between the need for punishment and the circumstances of the defendant.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders