R v Eckersley - [2020] VSC 22

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0291

THE QUEEN

DANIEL MARTIN ECKERSLEY

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April, 8 May & 18 December 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 January 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Eckersley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 22

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Standard sentence offence – Plea of guilty – Accused stabbed partner in head, neck, chest and upper body – Attack occurred in presence of children – Accused in drug-induced psychosis at time of offending – Accused unaware tramadol use would cause psychosis – Offending objectively very serious – Moral culpability significantly reduced by psychosis – Reduced weight accorded to deterrence, denunciation and protection of communication – Sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years – R v Verdins – DPP v Arvanitidis – Sentencing Act 1991

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kissane QC Ms B. Goding	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Marsh	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Daniel Eckersley, on 29 April 2019, you pleaded guilty to the murder of Amanda Jane Harris, that offence having been committed on 7 July 2018.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. It is a category 1 offence and a standard sentence offence.

Background

Amanda Harris was born on 23 September 1981 in New South Wales and was 36 years old at the time of her death. Her parents having separated, Ms Harris lived with her mother, stepfather and siblings until she was eight or nine years old. Later, she lived with her brother and grandmother. In 2000, when she was 19, she moved to live with her mother and stepfather in Victoria.

You first met Ms Harris in about 2001 and soon commenced a relationship and began living together. You and Ms Harris had three children, a son born in 2009, and two daughters, born in 2011 and 2016. At the time you committed this offence, you were all living together in Maria Court, Cranbourne North.

The relationship between Ms Harris and her family deteriorated during your relationship. You reportedly did not make her family welcome at your home, and they eventually stopped visiting. At the time of her death, Ms Harris had a very limited relationship with her family, apart from her grandmother, Beryl Currie, with whom you both maintained a good relationship.

According to several of Ms Harris’ family members, you reportedly exhibited controlling behaviour towards Ms Harris, and sometimes dictated what she could and could not do. Despite your behaviour, Ms Harris’ family state she remained in love and devoted to you.

Circumstances of the offending
The period preceding Ms Harris’ death

Leading up to your offending, your mood and demeanour had begun to deteriorate. On 1 July 2018, Ms Harris rang her grandmother, Beryl Currie, and told her that you were ‘in a hole’…

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 Eckersley

Details

AGLC: R v Eckersley [2020] VSC 22
Case: [2020] VSC 22
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Eckersley, the defendant was convicted of murder following a plea of guilty. The incident involved the accused fatally stabbing their partner in various parts of the body, including the head, neck, chest, and upper body. The attack occurred in the presence of children, adding a layer of brutality to the crime. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the standard sentence for murder, the impact of the drug-induced psychosis on the accused's culpability, and the appropriate weight to be given to deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community. The court had to balance the objective seriousness of the crime against the significantly reduced moral culpability due to the psychosis, which was not anticipated by the accused. In reaching its decision, the court referenced relevant precedents, including R v Verdins and DPP v Arvanitidis, as well as the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.

The court acknowledged the severe nature of the offence but found that the mitigating factor of the drug-induced psychosis significantly reduced the accused's culpability. While the need for deterrence and denunciation remained important, these considerations were given reduced weight in light of the mitigating circumstances. The court ultimately sentenced the accused to 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing principles involved.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles.

Orders