R v Howard (No 2) - [2006] VSC 376

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1477 of 2002

THE QUEEN

PETER JOHN HOWARD

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	8, 11-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 SEPTEMBER, 2-6, 9-11 OCTOBER 2006 12 OCTOBER 2006 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 OCTOBER 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v HOWARD (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 376

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Female victim stabbed in her home – Plea of not guilty – Prior convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping – No evidence of remorse – Sentence to a maximum of twenty years with a non-parole period of fifteen years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman SC	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Dane QC with Mr P. Bourke	Simon English & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Peter John Howard, you have for the second time been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Olive Maas. The first verdict was overturned on appeal. You did not, however, appeal against the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 15 years) that, on 12 March 2004, was imposed by the trial judge, Justice Williams, following your earlier conviction.

In these circumstances, it seemed to me that, unless I have some appropriate reason for imposing a different sentence, I should make no change to that pronounced by her Honour on the previous occasion. Both your counsel and the prosecutor agreed. Nevertheless, the decision must be mine. I must examine with care the reasons expressed by Justice Williams in her sentencing remarks, and take into account the evidence called in the trial over which I recently presided. I must also have regard to the submissions made by counsel during the plea hearing that took place last Thursday, 12 October 2006, and to all relevant statutory provisions. These of course include, in particular, the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.

The death of Olive Maas was an example of the inexplicable savagery with which humans are sometimes capable. Without any apparent motive, you attacked your neighbour early one morning while she was, as she must have thought, secure in the comfort of her home. On some 30 occasions (an exact calculation is impossible) you plunged a knife into her body. One blow penetrated the area surrounding her left eye, including her skull and her brain. One of her ribs was fractured. A number of the blows injured her lungs and heart. While this was happening, she was attempting, with her bare hands and arms, to protect herself. As a final searing indignity, the knife was left where it last entered her body, penetrating the side of her chest to its hilt. You subjected Olive Maas to almost as horrible a death as any person in this country can ever have endured.

For this, you have exhibited no remorse. Justice Williams could find none,…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Howard (No 2) [2006] VSC 376
Case: [2006] VSC 376
Decision Date: 16 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Howard (No 2), the respondent, Howard, was convicted of murdering a female victim in her own home. The victim was stabbed to death. Howard pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The court had to consider Howard’s prior convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping and the lack of evidence of remorse in determining the appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with deciding on an appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the crime, the respondent’s lack of remorse, and his criminal history.

The court began its analysis by recognising the gravity of the offence committed. The murder of a woman in her own home was a violent and heinous crime. The court also noted the respondent’s prior criminal history, including convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping. These factors contributed to the severity of the sentence. The court considered the absence of any evidence of remorse from the respondent as an aggravating factor. This lack of remorse indicated a higher risk of reoffending. The court balanced these factors with the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

In arriving at its decision, the court determined that a sentence of a maximum of twenty years with a non-parole period of fifteen years was appropriate. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the respondent’s criminal history. It also aimed to provide adequate deterrence and protection for the community. The court acknowledged the respondent's lack of remorse but also considered the potential for rehabilitation over time. The final orders of the court included the imposition of the determined sentence.

Orders