R v Edwards - [2003] VSC 510

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MILDURA
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1428 of 2003

THE QUEEN

KEITH MARTIN EDWARDS

---

JUDGE:	GILLARD J.
WHERE HELD:	MILDURA
DATE OF HEARING:	21 November to 5 December 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	Tuesday 16 December 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Edwards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 510

---

SENTENCE - Murder.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1 Keith Martin Edwards, the jury has found you guilty of the murder of Vincent Vassallo ("the deceased"). He died on 25 December 2001. It now falls on me to sentence you. My task is to determine the facts consistent with the jury's verdict, and applying the principles of law concerning sentence, determine in the exercise of my discretion, what is a proportionate and appropriate sentence in the circumstances.

2 In relation to the sentencing process, I note the observations of the Court of Appeal in R v Storey (1998) [1]1 VR 359 at 366, where four members of the court said:

"Sentencing is not a mechanical process. It requires the exercise of a discretion. There is no single "right" answer which can be determined by the application of principle. Different minds will attribute different weight to various facts in arriving at the 'instinctive synthesis' which takes into account the various purposes for which sentences are imposed - just punishment, deterrence rehabilitation, denunciation, protection of the community - and which pays due regard to the principles of totality, parity, parsimony and the like."

[1] (1998) 1 VR 359 at 366

3 At the outset it is necessary for me to determine the relevant facts consistent with the verdict of the jury. It is a trite proposition that the verdict establishes that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, of each of the elements constituting the crime of murder. You gave evidence at the trial. Your records of interviews with the police, which were recorded, were tendered in evidence.

4 In the interviews and also in evidence given at trial, you gave a version of the events immediately leading up to the shooting. You shot the deceased with a shotgun hitting him in the lower part of the face, killing him instantly. You claim the shooting was an accident. You did not contest the deceased was killed, that you caused his death by discharge of a shotgun and that the act which caused his death was conscious, voluntary and deliberate. However, you said that at the time when you shot him, you did not have the necessary intention. That is, the intention of killing him, or the intention of inflicting really serious injury upon him. It is in this sense that you describe the killing as an accident.

5 You were charged with his murder on 25 December 2001, and you have been in custody ever since. Your defence at trial concerns the…

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 [2003] VSC 510
Case: [2003] VSC 510
Decision Date: 16 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards involved the conviction of the defendant for murder. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the accused contested both the sufficiency of the evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the jury was correctly directed on the elements of the crime and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

The legal issues revolved around whether the evidence was adequate to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the murder. Furthermore, the court had to consider if the trial judge provided proper instructions to the jury regarding the legal standards for murder. The defence also argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime, asserting that it was excessive given the circumstances.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of murder, ensuring that the jury's verdict was based on proper legal principles. Regarding the sentence, the court held that while the crime was heinous, the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate in the context of the crime and the defendant's culpability. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the sentence, affirming that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, confirming the conviction for murder and upholding the sentence imposed by the lower court. The decision underscored the importance of correctly applying legal principles in criminal trials and the courts' role in ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just.

Orders