R v Gemmill - [2004] VSC 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1467 of 2002

THE QUEEN

NOEL LAWRENCE GEMMILL

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27-31 OCTOBER; 3-7, 10-17 NOVEMBER 2003; 21 JANUARY 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 JANUARY 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v NOEL LAWRENCE GEMMILL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 30

---

Murder – Sentence – Impact of diagnosed depressive illness on sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman SC	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Houlihan	Grant Thomson

HIS HONOUR:

Noel Lawrence Gemmill, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Robyn Ann Gemmill at Nathalia on 28 August 2001. The deceased was married to you in 1975 but had separated from you some months prior to the date of her death. At the time of her death she was living in a caravan park at Nathalia.

She attended at the former matrimonial home in order to pick up some jewellery owned by her, pursuant to an arrangement which you had suggested. The necessity for this arrangement arose from the fact that you had not been able to return her jewellery to her when she attended two days before with friends in order to collect property pursuant to an interim property settlement agreement.

As you subsequently told police, after an initially amicable discussion an argument developed concerning property and, in particular, your wife's jewellery. You commenced to struggle with her in a manner that is not entirely clear on the evidence and then grabbed a knife from a bookshelf and attacked and stabbed her with it.

During this attack the blade of the knife was broken from its handle and your wife suffered injuries which ultimately left her lying motionless on the floor. At this point you believed she was dead. You went into the kitchen of the house in order to obtain further knives with which to kill yourself. When you returned from the kitchen your wife got up and came at you with the broken blade of the knife which you had first used against her. You again struggled with her and attacked her. During this struggle she was weak and the two of you fell or otherwise came to the floor. Ultimately you deliberately cut your wife's throat with one of the larger knives you had obtained from the kitchen. In so doing you inflicted repeated cuts resulting in horrific wounds to your wife's neck.

Following this you made an attempt on your own life, inflicting substantial wounds with a bread knife to your wrist and further wounds to your throat and chest.

At your trial you did not contest the fact that you had intentionally killed your wife but evidence was called from a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Walton, in support of the proposition that at the time of the killing you were, as a result of severe depression, mentally impaired…

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 Gemmill

Details

AGLC: R v Gemmill [2004] VSC 30
Case: [2004] VSC 30
Decision Date: 23 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gemmill involved the defendant, Gemmill, who was convicted of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account Gemmill's diagnosed depressive illness. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the legal issues primarily centred on how Gemmill's mental health condition should influence the sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which Gemmill's diagnosed depressive illness should mitigate the severity of his sentence. The court had to balance the mitigating effects of the illness against the gravity of the offence. The prosecution argued that despite the illness, the nature of the crime warranted a severe penalty, whereas the defence contended that the illness should significantly reduce the sentence. The court was required to consider both the clinical evidence presented regarding Gemmill's mental state and the statutory framework governing sentencing for murder.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence of Gemmill's depressive illness, including expert psychiatric assessments and testimonies. The court acknowledged the significant impact of the illness on Gemmill's capacity to control his actions at the time of the crime. However, it also recognised the heinous nature of the offence and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the court determined that while Gemmill's illness was a mitigating factor, it did not sufficiently reduce the culpability to warrant a substantially lesser sentence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the severity of the crime and the mitigating effects of Gemmill's illness.

Orders