R v Hopkins - [2011] VSC 517

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 33 of 2011

THE QUEEN

DAVID WARWICK HOPKINS

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	5, 7, 30 September 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 October 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hopkins
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 517

---

Murder: – plea of guilty – application to change plea – refused – victim burnt alive by prisoner – public held at bay as victim burns - public event – trauma to general public and witnesses – heavy drug usage – no remorse - utilitarian plea - Sentence life with 30 year minimum.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Champion SC Ms H Fatouros	For the office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Moen	M Gleeson & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Nicole Joy Millar was born on 30 May 1968 and died on 1 June 2010. She was just 42 years of age and had three children; Joel Read, Ashlea Read and Kane Robertson. Those children are aged from 22 to 15 years.

Ms Millar had made what could be described as very unfortunate choices in men in her life. She had previously been the victim of domestic violence and forced to flee abusive relationships. Since about 2005, she had been living in Ministry of Housing accommodation in Bayswater North. She had in her life predominantly worked as a cleaner but in more recent times had been working as a driver for an automotive spare parts retailer, located in Bayswater. Her daughter Ashlea had become quite ill and she had been a stay at home carer for a period of time, but around March 2010 she had returned, on a casual basis, as a driver with the automotive firm. Her daughter’s health had improved and she had moved out, as had her older son, leaving just the youngest child residing with her.

Ms Millar had been involved in illicit drug use involving marijuana, heroin and amphetamines over a large period of her adult life.

You had met Ms Millar some time in 2008, as I can best ascertain, and commenced a sexual relationship with her, despite living in a de facto relationship with your then partner. After your partner left with the children you subsequently moved into the premises occupied by Ms Millar and, it would appear, continued the history she had of violent relationships.

Ms Millar had over the years sought assistance from a number of different agencies relating to drug and alcohol issues, parenting and family problems. In a meeting with her Anglicare worker, Judy Buitenhuis, Ms Millar disclosed incidents in which you had been violent towards her on a number of occasions. During a particular meeting in late May 2009, Ms Millar told her worker that she was no longer in a relationship with you as you had been violent to her on three occasions. Clearly the relationship must have resumed as you were living…

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 Hopkins

Details

AGLC: R v Hopkins [2011] VSC 517
Case: [2011] VSC 517
Decision Date: 19 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hopkins, the respondent was convicted of murder for the brutal killing of his partner, which involved burning her alive while she was in police custody. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the respondent's application to change his plea of guilty to not guilty should be allowed. The application was refused, leading to the sentencing of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years.

The court had to determine whether the extreme circumstances of the murder, including the public nature of the crime, warranted a reconsideration of the respondent's plea. The court found that the respondent had shown a lack of remorse and had engaged in heavy drug use, which contributed to the crime. The court also considered the trauma experienced by the public and witnesses, as well as the respondent's lack of remorse. The court concluded that the respondent's plea of guilty was valid and should not be changed.

The High Court held that the extreme nature of the crime, the public trauma, and the respondent's lack of remorse did not justify allowing the application to change his plea. The court emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the need to protect the integrity of the justice system. The court also noted the need to deter such heinous crimes and to provide appropriate punishment for the offender. The respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the need for public protection.

Orders