R v Edwards (No 3) - [2019] NSWSC 1815

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Edwards (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1815
Hearing dates: 16 December 2019
Decision date: 18 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 24 years with a non-parole period of 18 years

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence – murder – conviction following jury trial – offender killed estranged wife of 33 years and disposed of her body – offender’s post-offence conduct included attempts to create impression of ignorance – multitude of lies – difficulty of assessing objective seriousness in absence of evidence of how offender killed deceased and disposed of her body – motive for killing was offender’s inability to accept that his wife had right to choose her own course in life – evidence showed that deceased wanted to end their marriage and engage in relationship with new partner – intention to cause grievous bodily harm – offence aggravated because offender killed deceased in her home and dumped and concealed her body – offence marginally below narrow mid-range of offending – absence of remorse – prior criminal history – physical and mental health issues – no evidence of mental condition relevant to offender’s functioning at time of offence – importance of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence in murder committed in domestic violence context – unlikely to reoffend due to advanced age on release of low significance – no special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 12(2)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, s 25C(11)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 51D(2)
Cases Cited: R v Keith Owen Goodbun [2018] NSWSC 1025
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
John Wallace Edwards
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Ratcliffe (Crown)
Mr P O’Connor (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Fuggle Rummery Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/184174

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Sharon Margaret Edwards was a shining light within her family, amongst her many friends, and within the wider community of the Grafton region. She loved life and she was much loved.
Ms Edwards was murdered by her husband, John Wallace Edwards, at Grafton on the night of Saturday 14-15 March 2015. He dumped her body somewhere and it has never been found.
Ms Edwards and the offender met at teachers college in Milperra in Sydney and they were married in 1982. They moved to Lawrence, a small town about 30km north-east of Grafton, in 1987. They both worked as school teachers. The offender was "medically retired" in 2011.
Ms Edwards was aged 55 at the time of her death and the offender was aged 58. They had three sons: Joshua, Eli, and Zac who are now aged in their late 20s to early 30s. As at March 2015, they had one granddaughter who Ms Edwards absolutely adored.
Ms Edwards met William (Billy) Mills when she was a young woman. He was the coach of her touch football team. They formed a relationship and engaged in an affair early in her marriage to the offender. The relationship…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1815
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1815
Decision Date: 18 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in the case of R v Edwards (No 3) was convicted of the murder of his estranged wife, following a jury trial. The court heard that the defendant killed his wife of 33 years and disposed of her body in an attempt to conceal the crime. Post-offence conduct included attempts to create an impression of ignorance and a multitude of lies. The central legal issues the court needed to address were the objective seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the killing, and the defendant's culpability. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence, the offender's conduct, and the principles of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence.

In considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the court noted the absence of evidence regarding the exact method of killing and disposal of the body. The motive was identified as the offender's inability to accept that his wife had the right to choose her own life course. The deceased had expressed a desire to end the marriage and engage in a relationship with another person. The court found the offence to be marginally below the narrow mid-range of offending. The offender's lack of remorse, prior criminal history, and physical and mental health issues were also considered. The importance of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence in the context of domestic violence was highlighted, with the court determining that the likelihood of reoffending due to the offender's advanced age on release held low significance. The court found no special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the normal sentencing principles.

The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence. The final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence, with specific details regarding parole eligibility and other conditions as determined by the court. The decision underscores the court's approach to sentencing in cases involving domestic violence and murder, emphasising the need to balance the offender's culpability and the broader societal interests.

Orders