R v Farquharson - [2010] VSC 462

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1524 of 2006

THE QUEEN

ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	16 September 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 October 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Farquharson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 462

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Three counts of murder – Victims being the prisoner’s children – Facts consistent with jury verdict – Facts which need to be determined – Facts adverse to the prisoner – Prisoner continues to deny guilt - Life Imprisonment – Minimum term – s 11 of the Sentencing Act – Factors relevant to fixing a minimum term – Serious violent offender – s 6C Sentencing Act – Whether protection of the community required – Minimum term fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC with Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC with Mr C Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid Geelong

HIS HONOUR:

Robert Donald William Farquharson, on 22 July 2010, after a trial lasting some 10 weeks, you were found guilty by the jury of three counts of murder. Each of the three counts represents one of your children being Jai, aged ten years, Tyler aged seven years and Bailey aged two years. On 16 September 2010 I heard submissions from both the prosecutor, Mr Tinney SC and your counsel, Mr Morrissey also of senior counsel, as to the sentence that I should impose on you for these three crimes of murder. In some respects sentencing you for these offences is straightforward but in others more difficult.

I have been involved in the practice of the law for 38 years and yet the tragedy of this case almost defies imagination. As Mr Tinney has submitted, and as is obvious, these were crimes committed against three vulnerable, helpless and wholly innocent children.

In addition, the case now has a five year history which includes the commission of these crimes by you on 4 September 2005, a subsequent Homicide Squad investigation resulting in you being charged with three counts of murder, committal proceedings, a trial in this Court in 2007 resulting in your conviction on each offence, and then an appeal to the Court of Appeal resulting in an order that you be re-tried. The retrial concluded with the three guilty verdicts to which I have just referred.

Your crimes have devastated a significant number of people. Primary among them is your ex-wife Cindy Gambino, the mother of these three children. Also, her now husband Stephen Moules, her family, your family and to a broader extent, many people in the township of Winchelsea who knew you and your family and in particular who knew your children. Some of them gave evidence on your trial and I am sure there are others who did not who are significantly affected.

You and Cindy Gambino lived together for ten years between 1994 and…

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 Farquharson

Details

AGLC: R v Farquharson [2010] VSC 462
Case: [2010] VSC 462
Decision Date: 15 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Farquharson, the accused was convicted on three counts of murder, the victims being the prisoner’s children. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the prisoner, taking into account the severity of the crimes committed and the specific circumstances surrounding them.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the relevance of the facts consistent with the jury's verdict, the facts that needed to be determined, and those that were adverse to the prisoner. Additionally, the court had to consider the prisoner's continued denial of guilt and the appropriate minimum term for life imprisonment, in accordance with section 11 of the Sentencing Act. The court also needed to assess whether the offender was a serious violent offender under section 6C of the Sentencing Act, and if protection of the community was required.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the gravity of the crimes and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences. It considered various factors relevant to fixing a minimum term, including the nature of the crimes and the offender’s conduct. The court concluded that the protection of the community was necessary, given the violent nature of the crimes. After careful deliberation, the court fixed a minimum term for life imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors. The final orders were made in line with these considerations.

Orders