R v Edwards - [2019] VSC 234

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MILDURA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
SCR 2017 0289

THE QUEEN

STACEY EDWARDS

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	12 April 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 April 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Edwards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 234

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Stabbing of domestic partner – Single stab wound to neck – Context of family violence – Drug dependency – Early offer to plead guilty – Guilty plea – Genuine remorse – Childhood disadvantage reducing moral culpability – No prior criminal record – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Delay – Sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D Piekusis SC with Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Barker with Ms N Sheridan-Smith	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

HER HONOUR:

Stacey Edwards, you have pleaded guilty to killing Michael Power on 22 November 2016 at Swan Hill in Victoria. Mr Power died as a result of a stab wound to the neck, inflicted by you.

You were initially charged with the murder of Mr Power, to which you pleaded not guilty. You indicated a preparedness to plead guilty to manslaughter in July 2017, well before the committal hearing. The Crown withdrew the charge of murder just before the start of the trial three weeks ago. You were arraigned on a charge of manslaughter, to which you pleaded guilty. By your plea of guilty, you accept that you intentionally stabbed Mr Power and that you had no lawful excuse for doing so.

You and Mr Power had been in a relationship for just over twelve months at the time of his death. You met Mr Power in Swan Hill through your step-father in September or October 2015. At the time, you were living in Swan Hill with Auntie Gwen Taylor and the youngest of your three children, a daughter who was approximately a year old. You were not in contact with your daughter’s father. You had two older children who did not live with you.

In February 2016, shortly after you took up with Mr Power, you were provided with your own unit, through the Department of Health and Human Services at 5/13 Makepeace Street, Swan Hill. The lease to Makepeace Street was in your name, but Mr Power immediately moved in with you and your daughter.

In the days before his death, Mr Power’s continuing presence at Makepeace Street became a source of frustration for you. It is clear from the material in the depositions that you wanted him out.

You and Mr Power were heavy drug users. In some ways, this may have drawn you together, but in other ways, it tore you apart. Among other things, it caused repeated heated arguments about money.

Your relationship with Mr Power was sometimes, if…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2019] VSC 234
Case: [2019] VSC 234
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards involved the defendant, Edwards, who was charged with manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The incident in question involved a single stab wound to the neck of his domestic partner, occurring within the context of family violence. The case was heard in the relevant court, where it was necessary to determine the appropriate sentence for Edwards.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's early offer to plead guilty, the demonstration of genuine remorse, the impact of childhood disadvantage on moral culpability, and the prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the delay in bringing the case to trial against the mitigating factors presented.

The court concluded that, while the offence was serious and involved significant violence, the mitigating factors warranted a reduced sentence. The judge found that Edwards had shown genuine remorse and had taken steps towards rehabilitation, including addressing his drug dependency. The court also noted the absence of a prior criminal record and the impact of the defendant's disadvantaged childhood on his moral culpability. Considering these factors, the court sentenced Edwards to 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders