R v Fulton - [2000] VSC 487

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

THE QUEEN

ROBYN MAREE FULTON

---

JUDGE:	Kellam J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 October 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Fulton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 487

HIS HONOUR:

You, Robyn Maree Fulton, have pleaded guilty before me to one count of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter in this State is 20 years imprisonment.

The crime arises out of an incident which took place at Brunswick on the evening of 17 February 2000 when your victim, James Edward Jelleff, who was then aged 60 years, died in consequence of being stabbed in the abdomen by you. The single stab injury caused damage to Mr Jelleff's aorta causing massive blood loss and consequent death. I note that the senior pathologist who undertook the autopsy concluded that the degree of force required to inflict this injury can be stated as being mild. You had known your victim for some years. Although you had what might be described as a de facto relationship with one Lesley Edwards, who is the father of your young child, you for some years before the death of your victim had been in the habit of staying with him on occasions. It would appear that you did this particularly on occasions when you had an argument with Edwards. The material before me establishes that you and your victim had a good relationship as friends and that the relationship was not sexual in nature. It is apparent that you and your victim shared a joint interest in the consumption of considerable amounts of alcohol on occasions. On the evening of 17 February this year, you were present with Jelleff at his premises in Barkly Street, Brunswick. It is apparent in the course of that evening each of you consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. Indeed, toxicological investigation subsequent to his death revealed that Jelleff had a blood alcohol level of 0.17 percent at autopsy. You told police that in the course of the evening you cooked steak for your evening meal. You said that Jelleff ate all of his meal, but that you did not eat yours. You said that your victim started to "maul" you and "talk dirty" to you. This statement to police is supported by a statement made by your brother-in-law, John Allen, whose statement is included in the depositions.
Mr Allen made a statement to police to the effect that he had telephoned you at Jelleff's home in Barkly Street in Brunswick on the evening of Thursday 17 February 2000 between about 9 p.m. And 10 p.m. He told police that it was a social call and that you answered the phone. He said that although at that time you sounded like you had drunk a couple of beers, you did not sound intoxicated. As I have said, the evidence before me demonstrates that you were affected by alcohol at the time of the crime. Allen said…

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 Fulton

Details

AGLC: R v Fulton [2000] VSC 487
Case: [2000] VSC 487
Decision Date: 26 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Fulton, the defendant was convicted by a jury of murder. The appeal was brought before his Honour Judge Miller in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Fulton, appealed his conviction and sentence on various grounds, including the alleged misdirection of the jury by the trial judge, the insufficiency of the evidence, and the excessiveness of the sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the evidence presented at trial and the application of legal principles to that evidence. The defendant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of intent and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the defendant contended that the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, his Honour Judge Miller found that the trial judge did not err in his instructions to the jury, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the issue of intent, and the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction and sentence of the defendant be upheld, and the appeal be dismissed. The court found no merit in the grounds of appeal advanced by the defendant, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders