Legal Research
Cases
R v Fitchett

R v Fitchett

Case [2010] VSC 393 1 September 2010

Mental Impairment

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. 1522 of 2006

THE QUEEN

DONNA FITCHETT

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27- 30 April 2010, 3 - 19 May 2010, 16 & 26 August 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 September 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Fitchett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 393	Amended 2 September 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Two counts of murder – Issue at trial the mental impairment of the offender, offender mild to moderately depressed at the time of the killings, severely depressed at the time of the sentence – Principles applicable on sentence after retrial.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Silbert SC with Ms A. Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Tehan QC with Mr C. Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Donna Fitchett, you have been found guilty by jury verdict of the murder of your two sons, Thomas and Matthew.

On Tuesday 6 September 2005, your then husband and the father of your sons, David Fitchett, returned from work to the family home in Dight Avenue, Balwyn North. Although it was 6.30pm, apart from a kitchen light, the house was in darkness and, upon entering, he found you standing in the hallway in bra and knickers, unsteady on your feet and holding sheets of A4 paper. He asked you where the boys were, and you told him they had spent the day at your sister’s and that they were at your neighbours’ for dinner. Mr Fitchett tried to assist you, but you became angry and asked him to leave you alone. You then walked towards the master bedroom, stumbling into a small table as you did so. He went to pick you up and Mr Fitchett turned on the light in the bedroom and moved towards the bed. At that point, he saw Thomas lying on the bed. He went over to him, his eyes were shut, he touched his head, which was cold, although his torso was warm. Mr Fitchett listened for a heartbeat and unsuccessfully tried CPR. He then went looking for Matthew and found Matthew lying on his bed in his bedroom. He was cold to touch, and Mr Fitchett realised that he was dead. At some point, Mr Fitchett rang “000”, and a tape of that call was tendered in evidence and played before the jury. Your voice can be heard on it. You went to Thomas’ bedroom and lay there on the bunk bed. At some point, you had cut your arms, neck and groin with a knife, and ingested Rohypnol tablets.

Mr Fitchett found, in the master bedroom, a note written by you and addressed to him. In that note, you admitted overdosing the boys and “when they were asleep I suffocated them and strangled them in case they woke up”. When the ambulance and police officers arrived and spoke to you, you refused treatment 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 Fitchett

Details

AGLC: R v Fitchett [2010] VSC 393
Case: [2010] VSC 393
Decision Date: 1 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fitchett involved the respondent being convicted of two counts of murder. The appellant was found guilty of the murders of his mother and her partner, but the initial conviction was quashed due to an error in the direction given to the jury. A retrial was conducted, and the appellant was again found guilty. The nature of the dispute in this case was primarily concerned with the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, taking into account his mental health conditions at the time of the offence and at the time of sentencing. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue that the court needed to address was the appropriate principles to apply in sentencing an offender who had committed a serious crime while suffering from a mental impairment. The appellant had a history of mental health issues, including mild to moderate depression at the time of the killings and severe depression at the time of sentencing. The court had to consider how these conditions should impact the severity of the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the appellant's mental state when assessing the circumstances of the crime and the offender's culpability.

In its decision, the court outlined the principles that should guide sentencing in cases involving offenders with mental impairments. The court emphasised that while mental impairment could be a mitigating factor, it did not absolve the offender of responsibility for their actions. The court noted that the appellant's mental state at the time of the offence did not excuse his actions but could be considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also highlighted that the severity of the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and protection of society. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant's mental health conditions were relevant mitigating factors, but they did not outweigh the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which included a life sentence with a non-parole period of 24 years. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes and was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances of the appellant's mental health conditions. The court's decision provided clarity on the principles to be applied in sentencing offenders with mental impairments, balancing the need for punishment with consideration of the offender's mental state.

Orders