R v Freeman - [2011] VSC 139

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1615 of 2009

THE QUEEN

ARTHUR PHILLIP FREEMAN

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 March 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Freeman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 139

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Victim being the prisoner’s child – Issue at trial the mental impairment of the offender - Child killed by father to punish mother - Life imprisonment - Minimum term – s 11 of the Sentencing Act – Factors relevant to fixing a minimum term – Minimum term fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Silbert SC with Ms D. Piekusis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Brustman SC with Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Arthur Phillip Freeman, after a trial lasting 19 days, you were convicted of the murder of your daughter, Darcey, on Thursday, 29 January 2009.

On that day, Darcey was to attend her first day at school at St Joseph’s Primary School in Hawthorn. Your children had been in your custody overnight. Darcey and her brothers, Benjamin and Jack, had been staying at Aireys Inlet with your parents while you and your former wife, Peta Barnes, were at the Family Court conducting a case about access to and custody of your children. The case had concluded the previous evening. Consent Orders were made. The arrangements for custody and access were altered so that the previous arrangement, which had been equally shared custody, was altered so that you would have three days custody each second weekend. You would also have had custody on the afternoon and early evening of the Thursday in the other week.

The orders were made by consent. Much of the final debate revolved around what would happen on the alternative Thursday, but eventually the arrangement described above was reached. In general, you had regarded your experience leading up to the hearing as unpleasant, and you regarded yourself as having been unfairly treated by Dr Neoh, the Court psychologist. Dr Neoh’s report formed part of the depositional material and I understand that Dr Neoh’s findings and conclusions are contentious. Large portions of Dr Neoh’s reports are set out in the report of Dr Lester Walton dated 4 May 2009 which was tendered on the plea. It does seem to me that the matters reported by Dr Neoh show that your attitude to the matters to be considered at the Family Court were largely self-centred.

In any event, at the conclusion of the proceedings, you told your friends that you were glad the proceedings were over and did not express any particular dissatisfaction with the result. You contacted your mother by telephone and told her of the result of the proceeding.

You reached your parents’ home in…

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 Freeman

Details

AGLC: R v Freeman [2011] VSC 139
Case: [2011] VSC 139
Decision Date: 11 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Freeman involved the defendant, a father, who was convicted of murdering his child, his daughter, to punish his estranged wife. The appeal was against the length of the minimum term of imprisonment set by the trial judge under section 11 of the Sentencing Act. The Court of Appeal reviewed the appropriate considerations in determining the minimum term for such a serious crime. The legal issues centred on whether the trial judge had considered all relevant factors in setting the minimum term and whether the term was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge’s assessment of the factors relevant to fixing the minimum term. These included the gravity of the offence, the offender's culpability, and any mitigating circumstances. The Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the heinous nature of the crime and the offender's mental impairment, which significantly impacted his culpability. The Court also considered the offender's history of violence and the impact of the murder on the victim's mother and family. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles and that the minimum term set was neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the sentence. The Court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing in cases involving serious crimes and mental impairment. It highlighted the need for judges to carefully weigh all relevant factors when setting a minimum term. The Court affirmed the trial judge's sentence, noting the gravity of the offence and the unique circumstances of this case.

Orders