R v Haigh - [2009] VSC 185

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1594 of 1992

IN THE MATTER OF PAUL STEVEN HAIGH

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMES ACT 1958

AND

AN APPLICATION BY PAUL STEVEN HAIGH PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 (2) (a) OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991 FOR A MINIMUM TERM

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	29 March 07,16, 23 April 07, 16 July 07, 8 October 07, 26 November 07, 20 December 07, 24 January 08, 19 June 08.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Haigh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 185

---

Application for minimum term – applicant sentenced to six life sentences without parole – offences committed 1978 and 1979 – subsequent conviction for murder whilst in custody – application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. R Alston S.C.	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecution
For the Applicant	Mr. P Tehan Q.C.	Amad and Amad

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

Early offences

The Offences for which a Minimum Term is Sought

(1)     4 counts of murder - sentenced to life imprisonment - November 1980
(2)     2 counts of Murder sentenced to life imprisonment - 1 May 1986
(3)     Subsequent Offending

Judges sentencing remarks

Adult Parole Board Victoria Report – 3 September 1982

Parole Officers Report of 22 May 1987

Psychiatric report dated 18 August 1989

Psychiatric report 11 April 1990

Parole Board report of 27 April 1990

Parole Officers report of 22 May 1987

Psychiatric report 4 April 1987

Classification reports 4 January 1988

Transcript of plea and sentencing hearing 26 May 1993

Judgment delivered 14 February 1994

Parole Board Report – 27 May 1994.

Report of Dr Ruth Vine 2 May 1994

Report by Correctional Services Division – 9 May 1994

Report by Community Corrections Office, Pentridge – 29 April 1993

Letter from Paul Haigh to Justice Bongiorno – 9 July 1994

Transcript of proceeding – 2 March 1995

Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 1999 – Exhibit 5

Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 2000 – Exhibit 5

Correspondence relating to Haigh’s request for counselling – 2 April 1996 and 18 April 2001 – Exhibit 8

Correspondence relating to Haigh’s attempts to contact the families of the victims – 2 June 1997 to 16 June 1998 – Exhibit 10.

Education Certificates – 1982, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2004 – Exhibit 11

Letter from Michael Amad Lawyers – 5 December 2003

Transcript of Proceedings – 10 June 2004

Complaints re Psychiatrists – February to October 2004 – Exhibit 12

Adult Parole Board Report – 24 January 2005

Christmas cards / poem

Interests
Physical and mental health

Conclusion

Letters to Professor Ogloff, regarding the Christmas card incidents – Exhibit 9

Letter dated 11 September 2006
Letter dated 13 September 2006

Professor Ogloff’s report – 13 April 2007 – Exhibit 2

Haigh’s psychological profile
Substance abuse
Risk of re-offending – limitations of assessment schemes
Risk of…

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 [2009] VSC 185
Case: [2009] VSC 185
Decision Date: 12 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haigh was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Haigh, had been sentenced to six life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes committed in 1978 and 1979. These offences included multiple counts of murder. Following his imprisonment, Haigh was convicted of another murder while in custody, which led to an application for the setting of a minimum term for his original sentences. The application for the minimum term was brought before the court with the aim of determining whether the sentences should be subject to a specified minimum period before parole eligibility could be considered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the six life sentences without parole, which Haigh had been serving since his initial convictions, should be subject to a minimum term. This consideration arose from Haigh's subsequent conviction for another murder while in custody, which led to questions about the appropriate punishment and the potential for parole eligibility in light of his continued criminal conduct. The court was required to balance the severity of Haigh's original crimes, his subsequent offending while in custody, and the principles of sentencing and punishment in the context of life sentences without parole.

The court found that Haigh's original sentences of life without parole remained appropriate and should not be subject to a minimum term. The reasoning was grounded in the seriousness of the original offences and the need for deterrence and protection of society. The court emphasised that Haigh's subsequent conviction for murder while in custody did not warrant a reduction in the severity of his original sentences. The court concluded that the original sentences adequately reflected the gravity of Haigh's crimes and the need to prevent any possibility of parole until it was certain that Haigh posed no further threat to society.

The High Court upheld the original sentences, refusing the application for a minimum term. This decision underscored the principle that life sentences without parole should remain firm in cases of severe criminal conduct, particularly when the offender continues to pose a risk to society. The court's decision reinforced the importance of considering the cumulative effect of an offender's crimes and the need to maintain the integrity of the justice system in imposing appropriate and consistent sentences.

Orders