R v Faure - [2000] VSC 208

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1540/97

THE QUEEN

LESLIE PETER FAURE

---

JUDGE:	Kellam J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 January 2000
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Leslie Peter Faure
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 208

---

MURDER – plea of guilty – issue at resentencing upon a plea of guilty after a retrial had been ordered – cooperation of victim - rehabilitation

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr Hillman	Office of the Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr Punshon	Balmer and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

I will deal with the forfeiture and the forensic sample applications first.

Upon the prisoner having pleaded guilty to one count of murder, the prosecution has made application for forfeiture of the Smith and Wesson revolver and ammunition used by the prisoner in the commission of the crime. I declare that I am satisfied that a firearm was used in the commission of the offence and pursuant to the provisions of s.151 of the Firearms Act 1996 I order the forfeiture to the Crown of the revolver concerned together with nine cartridges, one fired bullet and one spent cartridge.

Furthermore, the prosecution has sought an order pursuant to s.464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 to the effect that the prisoner undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a blood sample. An order to this effect was previously made by Hampel, J. On 15 December 1998. By reason of the successful appeal upon your previous conviction that order was not executed and ceased to have effect.

I, however, adopt the reasons set out in the ruling of Hampel, J. at p.546 to p.549 in the transcript of the trial of this matter before His Honour and order, pursuant to s.464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 that Leslie Peter Faure undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of an intimate sample, namely blood, in accordance with Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Mr Faure, for the reasons previously advanced by Hampel, J., namely, that the offence is one of murder, that a revolver was used, and that you have a prior conviction for having possession of a proscribed weapon, I make this order. I am required by law to inform you that a member of the Police Force may use reasonable force to enable the procedure to be conducted.

I now turn to the sentence.

You, Leslie Peter Faure, have pleaded guilty before me to the murder of Lorna Stevens. The factual background to the plea made before me is as follows:

You and Lorna Stevens had commenced a relationship about three weeks before her death. At about 11 p.m. On

5 August 1997 you and Lorna Stevens went to her residence, which was situated at a bungalow next to a house in Seaview Parade, Dromana. The occupier of the house, one David Dunlop heard, a car arrive at about 11 p.m. Some minutes later he heard what sounded to…

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 Faure

Details

AGLC: R v Faure [2000] VSC 208
Case: [2000] VSC 208
Decision Date: 4 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Faure, who had previously pleaded guilty to the murder of the victim, and was now before the court for resentencing. The matter came before the court following a retrial order, which led to Faure's plea of guilty. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Faure, taking into account various factors, including the cooperation of the victim and Faure's rehabilitation efforts. The legal issues before the court centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Faure, considering his guilty plea, the circumstances of the murder, and the factors that should be taken into account in determining the sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in murder cases, including the need to deter and punish the offender, and the need to consider the interests of the victim and their family. The court also took into account the fact that Faure had pleaded guilty and had shown some degree of cooperation with the victim's family. The court further considered the evidence of Faure's rehabilitation efforts, including his participation in a rehabilitation program and his efforts to make amends to the victim's family. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for Faure should reflect the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the mitigating factors that were present in the case.

After considering all the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Faure was a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court noted that this sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, while also taking into account the mitigating factors that were present in the case. The court further noted that the sentence was commensurate with sentences imposed in similar cases, and that it provided an appropriate balance between the need to deter and punish the offender, and the need to consider the interests of the victim and their family. The court also noted that the sentence provided an opportunity for Faure to continue his rehabilitation efforts and to make amends to the victim's family.

Orders