R v Klaussner - [2015] VSC 296

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0130

THE QUEEN

ANDREW KLAUSSNER

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May, 22 June 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Klaussner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 296

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Offender strangled partner in argument over drugs – Unpremeditated – Did not report death for 2 days – Initially lied and tried to shift blame on others – Guilty plea – Early plea – Some evidence of remorse – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms F L Dalziel	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A D Trood	Spicer Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Andrew Klaussner, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your de facto partner, Elizabeth Barnes, on 26 September 2013.

You met Ms Barnes in March 2012. You both had longstanding addictions to drugs and alcohol, and lived intermittently in boarding houses and on the streets. Your financial situation was always precarious; you both received Centrelink benefits, which were paid on alternate weeks. The two of you argued frequently – particularly when you had been drinking – and accused each other of being violent.

In August 2013, you both moved into a cabin at a caravan park in Yarra Junction, after being evicted from a boarding house for the non-payment of rent. By the end of September, you were again having trouble paying rent.

On the morning of her death, Ms Barnes received her Centrelink payment of about $740. Neither of you had any other money. The two of you travelled to Yarra Junction, where she withdrew $200. She gave you $50, which you used to buy six cans of bourbon mixed drink. After buying a few other items, you both travelled to Warburton. On arrival, you bought a couple more cans of bourbon mixed drink, and she bought you some lunch.

You both met with one of your friends, Kevin Blain, and went to a nearby pub for a beer. Then you and Ms Barnes met a local real estate agent, and looked at a couple of potential rental properties. You went back to the pub, and continued drinking with Mr Blain. You and Ms Barnes discussed how much you would need for rent and bond, if you were successful in your rental applications. According to Mr Blain, you each drank about eight pots of beer at the pub.

After you returned to the caravan park, around 4.00 pm, you went to another cabin to drink with a neighbour. While you were there, around 5.30 pm, you sent a text to Kevin Blain to the effect of “can I kill her” or “should I kill her.” The prosecution accepts that, when you sent the text, you were annoyed or fighting with Ms…

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 Klaussner

Details

AGLC: R v Klaussner [2015] VSC 296
Case: [2015] VSC 296
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Klaussner, was charged with the murder of his partner in a violent altercation over drugs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Klaussner admitted to the murder but claimed that it was not premeditated, and he pleaded guilty, which led to a reduction in his sentence. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder and the factors that should be considered in determining the length of the sentence, including the circumstances of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence, including the unpremeditated nature of the crime, the offender's early guilty plea, and some evidence of remorse. However, the court also noted the offender's failure to report the death for two days, his initial lies and attempts to shift blame, and the violent nature of the crime. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of 19 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years was appropriate, taking into account both the seriousness of the crime and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need to deter and condemn the offender's conduct with the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court found that the offender's early guilty plea and some evidence of remorse were mitigating factors, but these were outweighed by the gravity of the crime and the offender's failure to report the death and shift blame. The court also considered the offender's reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, which supported a sentence that provided an opportunity for the offender to address the underlying issues that led to the crime.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court's decision reflects the importance of balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation in sentencing for serious crimes such as murder.

Orders