Legal Research
Cases
R v Haigh

R v Haigh

Case [2012] VSC 617 13 December 2012

Criminal Liability

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. 1594 of 1992

THE QUEEN
v
PAUL STEVEN HAIGH	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3-7 December 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Haigh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 617

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Non-parole period – Murder – Multiple murders – Application for an order to fix a non-parole period for life sentenced prisoner – Penalties and Sentences Act 1985, s 18A(1) – Sentencing Act 1991, s 13(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Crown	Mr P.N. Rose SC with Mr C.T. Carr	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In November 1980, Paul Steven Haigh, the applicant, was found guilty on four counts of murder as follows:

(a)the murder of Wayne Keith Smith on 27 June 1979;
(b)the murder of Sheryle Ann Gardner on 22 July 1979;
(c)the murder of Danny William Mitchell on 22 July 1979; and
(d)the murder of Lisa Maude Brearley on 8 August 1979.

In June 1986, the applicant pleaded guilty to two further counts of murder as follows:

(a)the murder of Evelyn Abraham on 21 September 1978; and
(b)the murder of Bruno Cingolani in December 1978.

When the applicant was sentenced for these six murders, the only available sentence was life imprisonment. A minimum term could not be fixed. On 1 July 1986, s 18A(1) was inserted into the Penalties and Sentences Act 1985. Section 18A(1) provided:

“With respect to any person who at the commencement of section 14 of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1986[1] is serving a sentence of imprisonment for the term of his or her natural life the Supreme Court may, on the application of that person or of the Director-General of Corrections, fix a minimum term in accordance with this Part[2] in any manner in which such a term might have been fixed had that person been sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court for the term of his or her natural life on or after that commencement.”

[1]1 July 1986.

[2]Section 18A was inserted into Part 2 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. Part 2 of the Penalties and Sentences Act contained s 17(2). Section 17(2) provided:

“A court shall not be required to fix a minimum term if the court considers that the nature of the offence and the antecedents of the offender render the fixing of a minimum term inappropriate.”

In December 1986, the applicant applied pursuant to s 18A for an order fixing a minimum term of imprisonment in respect of the six terms of life imprisonment which had been imposed on him.

On 22 April 1992, the Penalties and Sentences Act was repealed and the Sentencing Act 1991 came into operation. Section 13 of the Sentencing Act relevantly provides:

“13. Fixing of non-parole period otherwise than by sentencing court
(1) …
(2) The Supreme Court may fix a non-parole period…

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 Haigh

Details

AGLC: R v Haigh [2012] VSC 617
Case: [2012] VSC 617
Decision Date: 13 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haigh involves an application by a life-sentenced prisoner, Haigh, seeking an order under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 to fix a non-parole period for his life sentence. Haigh was convicted for multiple murders and is currently serving a sentence with an indefinite non-parole period. The application was brought before the court, which had to determine whether it was just and appropriate to fix a non-parole period.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the application should be granted, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the age and health of the prisoner, and the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1991. The court needed to assess if the indefinite non-parole period was still necessary and whether fixing a specific non-parole period would be consistent with the principles of justice.

In making its decision, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the number of victims, and the impact on the victims' families. It also took into account Haigh's age, health, and the time elapsed since the crimes were committed. The court determined that while the crimes were heinous and the impact profound, the passage of time and Haigh's current circumstances warranted a fixed non-parole period. The court concluded that it was just and appropriate to set a specific non-parole period, reflecting the changed circumstances and the principles of justice.

The final orders of the court were to fix a non-parole period of 25 years for Haigh's life sentence, taking effect from a specified date. This decision aimed to balance the need for public protection with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Orders