R v Howard - [2004] VSC 73

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1477 of 2002

THE QUEEN

PETER JOHN HOWARD

---

JUDGE:	Williams J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30-31 October 2003; 3 November 2003; 5-7 November 2003; 10-14 November 2003; 17-19 November 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 March 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Howard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 73	First Revision 17/3/04

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Stabbing of female victim alone in home – Not guilty plea – 70 year old male offender – Conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping 27 years earlier – No evidence of prospects of rehabilitation – Imprisonment for a maximum period of 20 years – Non-parole period of 15 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Accused	Mr C. Dane Q.C. and Mr M. Croucher	Simon English, Barristers and Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan S.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Peter John Howard you have been found guilty by a jury of murdering Olive Martha Maas at Boronia on 12 June 2002.

The background circumstances

Olive Maas was your 59 year old neighbour living at 18B Catherine Street, directly across from unit 2 number 5, where you had lived for some 20 years.

Ms Maas was a much loved member of the close-knit community of Catherine Street. She was described as warm, friendly, generous and gregarious. She had worked for many years in health care before retiring in 1998. She gathered neighbours and friends together. She was actively involved in the Lutheran church.

You had had little or no contact with Ms Maas. Neighbours spoke of you avoiding her and not responding if she did happen to pass and greet you.

On one occasion, some ten years before the murder, you had asked visitors to Ms Maas' house not to park outside yours. There had been some conversation between you and Ms Maas about parking and she had told neighbours that she had informed you that the street was a public place and that people had a right to park where they wished. Afterwards, she had asked her visitors not to park in front of your house.

You lived as a recluse, with no interaction with any of the neighbours who gave evidence. You were frequently seen standing at your front window looking into the street in the direction of Ms Maas' house. Ms Maas also mentioned to others that she had noticed you looking out the window, constantly, in her direction.

In June 2002, you told Detective Sergeant Gale of the Homicide Squad that you had always found Ms Maas to be "aggressively friendly".

You and your late mother had lived together in the unit which she had rented some 20 years earlier from its builder and owner, Mr John Stockley. Your mother had died at some unascertained date before the murder.

The property adjoining yours, unit 1, had been vandalised approximately 12 months before the murder. Mr Stockley…

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 Howard

Details

AGLC: R v Howard [2004] VSC 73
Case: [2004] VSC 73
Decision Date: 12 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Crown prosecuted an individual, Howard, for the murder of a female victim. The offence occurred when the victim was stabbed while alone in her home. Howard pleaded not guilty to the charge. The matter proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the murder conviction, taking into account Howard’s criminal history, which included a prior conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping 27 years earlier, and the lack of evidence of any prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered various legal principles and factors in determining the sentence. The primary consideration was the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved a violent and premeditated attack on an elderly woman. The court also examined Howard's criminal history and his age at the time of sentencing. The prior conviction for a serious offence demonstrated a pattern of criminal behaviour, and the absence of any evidence of rehabilitation presented a significant risk of reoffending. The court further assessed the need for deterrence and denunciation, given the heinous nature of the crime.

In delivering the sentence, the court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society. It acknowledged the risk of reoffending due to Howard's criminal history and lack of rehabilitation. The court imposed a maximum imprisonment term of 20 years, with a non-parole period of 15 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need to ensure public safety. The sentence also recognised the principles of proportionality and individualisation, tailoring the punishment to the specific circumstances of the offender and the offence.

Orders