R v Jensen - [2007] VSC 199

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1457 of 2004

THE QUEEN

DOUGLAS VICTOR JENSEN

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 - 23, 26 , 28 FEBRUARY 2007, 1 – 2, 5 – 9, 13 – 16, 19 – 20, 23 MARCH 2007.
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 JUNE 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v JENSEN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 199

---

Murder – premeditated and cold blooded killing – personality aspects consistent with Asperger’s syndrome – some reduction in moral culpability – tinnitus complaint with depression and obsessive personality affecting hardship during imprisonment – sentence of 20 years imprisonment with 16 years non parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC with Mr A. Lewis
For the Accused	Mr D. Drake

HIS HONOUR:

Douglas Victor Jensen, you have been found guilty by a jury of 12 of the murder of your father Marius Kristian Jensen at Tarrington on 2 February 2000.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on that day you attended the Hamilton Police Station in a state of distress to advise police that your father had been shot dead at your home at Tarrington. Upon police attending the scene it became apparent that your father had been shot to the head at point blank range with a heavily modified shotgun firing a .38 calibre special cartridge.

The Crown case against you was a circumstantial one involving a combination of matters, including character evidence refuting the suggestion of suicide, admissions by you, including admissions that you and no one else were in the immediate vicinity of your father at the time of his death, alleged lies as to your whereabouts at the time of the shooting, extensive forensic evidence as to the nature of the murder weapon, blood spatter evidence, blood stain markings, evidence suggesting the burning of a pair of jeans in the kitchen where your father's body was found, and relationship evidence.

It is not my task to analyse and review that evidence, save to say that the only view of the evidence consistent with the jury's verdict is that you shot your 75-year old father as he sat at the kitchen table and that the killing was a cold-blooded and premeditated one; a view I should add that was clearly open to the jury on the evidence despite its circumstantial nature.

There are a number of aggravating factors and no readily apparent mitigating aspects in the circumstances of your crime. You shot an unarmed and defenceless 75-year old man in his home. You were a person from whom he was entitled to expect natural love and affection. There is no evidence of provocation. The manner in which he was shot strongly suggests that you were able to approach him as someone he trusted. The weapon used had been deliberately modified for the purpose for which it was used and was unregistered. The shot was fired to the right…

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 Jensen

Details

AGLC: R v Jensen [2007] VSC 199
Case: [2007] VSC 199
Decision Date: 13 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jensen involved the defendant, Jensen, who was charged with the murder of an individual. The nature of the killing was described as premeditated and cold-blooded. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issues revolved around the defendant’s personality aspects, which were consistent with Asperger’s syndrome, and how this condition might impact the assessment of moral culpability. The court also considered the effects of the defendant’s tinnitus, which was associated with depression and an obsessive personality, on his ability to endure imprisonment.

The court had to determine whether the defendant’s Asperger’s syndrome resulted in a reduction of moral culpability for the crime. Additionally, the court assessed the impact of the defendant’s health conditions on his capacity to serve a sentence in prison. The judgment required a careful balancing of the defendant’s personal circumstances against the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court found that while there was some reduction in moral culpability due to the Asperger’s syndrome, it was not sufficient to substantially mitigate the sentence.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ultimately determined that Jensen should be sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court acknowledged the defendant’s health issues and personality aspects but emphasised the severity of the crime. The sentence reflects a consideration of both the mitigating factors and the need to uphold the principles of justice and public protection. The final orders of the court are that Jensen is to serve a total of 20 years in prison, with 16 years of that period being non-parole.

Orders