Legal Research
Cases
R v Edwards

R v Edwards

Case [2008] VSC 297 13 August 2008

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1490 of 2007

THE QUEEN

KEVIN ROY EDWARDS

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28, 29 May, 4 June, 29 July 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 August 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Edwards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 297

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Plea of guilty – Victim bashed to death – Incident occurring in front of victim’s partner and their child – 10 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 8 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S Cooper	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Dann	Randles Cooper & Co Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Kevin Roy Edwards, by a presentment filed 30 May 2007 you were charged with the murder on 4 June 2006 of Barry Allan O’Neill. On 28 May 2008 your trial began. On that day I heard an application made on behalf of your son, Kevin Edwards Junior, to be exempted from giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution pursuant to s 400(3) of the Crimes Act 1958.

On the following day, 29 May 2008, I was informed that the prosecution intended to file a new presentment charging you with defensive homicide, contrary to s 9AD of the Crimes Act 1958 and that you intended to plead guilty to that charge. The new presentment was filed and you did plead guilty. I then made an order staying the presentment containing the murder count. On 4 June 2008 I heard a plea on your behalf. I heard further submissions on the operation of ss 14, 15 and 16 of the Sentencing Act 1991 on 29 July 2008.

The offence of defensive homicide was introduced by the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005. The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. The presentment alleges that you killed Barry Allan O’Neill in the belief it was necessary to carry out the conduct which killed him in order to defend yourself from the infliction of death or really serious injury in circumstances where you did not have reasonable grounds for that belief.

You killed Mr O’Neill on Sunday 4 June 2006 at about 7.10 pm at his home in Sunbury in the presence of his then domestic partner, Kim Martin, and in the presence of your son Kevin Edwards Junior. Kim Martin had been your domestic partner and she is the mother of Kevin Edwards Junior.

In the mid 1990s you and Kim Martin formed a relationship. The two of you lived together at a house in Coolaroo. She fell pregnant to you with Kevin Junior in about April 1997. On 3 September 1997 you and an accomplice carried out an armed robbery on a post office. You were apprehended and were on remand until sentenced on 15 December 1998 in the County Court. You were sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine years six months’…

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 [2008] VSC 297
Case: [2008] VSC 297
Decision Date: 13 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards arose from a tragic incident of defensive homicide where the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. The incident involved the victim being bashed to death in front of their partner and child, leading to a serious criminal prosecution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine an appropriate sentence given the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was to decide on a suitable sentence for the defendant who had admitted to the crime. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with the mitigating factors, particularly the nature of the plea and the traumatic circumstances under which the offence occurred. Another critical consideration was the impact on the victim’s family, who witnessed the fatal assault.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the gravity of the offence, the defendant's guilty plea, and the traumatic experience of the victim's family. The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but also recognised the defendant's remorse and early guilty plea as mitigating factors. After weighing these considerations, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period set at 8 years. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the recognition of the defendant's remorse and the unique circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's imprisonment for 10 years, with an 8-year non-parole period, reflecting the court's comprehensive assessment of the case's facts and the applicable legal principles.

Orders