R v Doherty - [2001] VSC 474

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1510 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ANDREW STEPHEN DOHERTY

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2, 3, 6-10, 13-17 August, 17 November 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 December 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Doherty
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 474

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Domestic murder - No remorse.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Horgan S.C with Mr. M. Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. I. Hayden	Pearsons

HIS HONOUR:

Andrew Stephen Doherty, on 17 August 2001 you were found guilty by a jury of having murdered your wife Vivienne at Donvale in this state on 14 February 2000. It is now my duty to sentence you according to law.

The circumstances in which the jury found you murdered your wife were horrendous. It is necessary for me to summarise them so as to explain the sentence which I am about to pass on you.

At the time of her death your wife was aged 46. You had been married since 1986 You had two children who are now aged 11 and 13. Your wife had been married before and was the mother of 21 year old twin boys. You had been married before but had no children of that marriage.

Up until 1991 you had been in regular employment with Telecom (which became Telstra) where you worked as a technician. Shortly after you left Telstra you and your wife purchased a mud brick house in Larne Avenue, Donvale. It was in a semi-rural setting on an acre or so of land.

At about the same time you bought a small engineering business which, among other things, manufactured parts for machines which filled sausages. This business, which appears never to have thrived, went slowly downhill. Contemporaneously you were diagnosed as having chronic fatigue syndrome; an illness of unknown aetiology which manifests itself in lassitude and a general inability to engage in physical activity.

In the months prior to your wife's death your relationship with her had deteriorated to a point where she had decided that your marriage was over. It appears that it had never been a particularly fruitful relationship; one characterised more by tolerance than by actual love and affection.

Around the beginning of 2000 your wife told a number of people that she had decided to end your marriage. Once of those she told was Mr Martin Gillespie, the minister of the Mitcham Church of Christ which you both attended, and in which you were both active. She asked him to speak to you on her behalf with a view to his convincing you that your marriage was over and that she wanted to separate.

You had a meeting with Mr Gillespie on Friday 11 February at the Blackburn Hotel. He told you that he and your wife had spoken on the previous Monday. She had told…

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 Doherty

Details

AGLC: R v Doherty [2001] VSC 474
Case: [2001] VSC 474
Decision Date: 7 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Doherty, the respondent was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The murder was perpetrated against the respondent's partner, and the dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed following the conviction. The respondent, Doherty, had no history of prior convictions but had exhibited a lack of remorse during the trial, which was a significant factor considered by the court.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Doherty for the murder of his partner, taking into account the nature of the offence, the absence of remorse, and other relevant factors. The court had to balance the principles of retribution and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation and the need to provide a just outcome for the victim's family.

The court found that the absence of remorse was a critical factor in determining the sentence. It emphasised that the principles of justice required a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence and provided a measure of deterrence. The court also considered the personal circumstances of Doherty, including his lack of prior criminal history and potential for rehabilitation, but ultimately concluded that these factors were outweighed by the need to uphold the principles of justice and provide a measure of retribution for the heinous nature of the crime. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years.

No further orders were made by the court in this instance.

Orders