R v Lees - [2004] VSC 187

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 225 of 2004

THE QUEEN

KEITH LEES

---

JUDGE:	Williams J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24-25 November 2003, 27–28 November 2003, 1-2 December 2003, 4-5 December 2003, 8-12 December 2003, 15-22 December 2003.
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 May 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lees
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 187

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Offender boarder at victim’s home – Victim disappeared – Victim last seen by offender – Cause of death not established – Aggravating circumstance – Disposal of body in remote bushland – Post-offence conduct demonstrating lack of remorse and unlikelihood of reform – Not guilty plea – First offence – Imprisonment for 20 years - Non-parole period of 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	McNamaras, Barristers & Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Keith Lees, you have been found guilty by a jury of murdering Barry Waters at a place unknown on or about 6 April 2001.

You were born on 2 December 1952 and you are 51 years old.

Background

You and your son, Gregory Lees, then aged about 14, boarded with Mr Waters at the time of the murder at 95 Golf Road, South Oakleigh. You had been looking for somewhere to live with your son and had met Mr Waters through the Eastleigh Community Church which you both attended. You had been living at Golf Road since the beginning of December 2000.

Mr Waters’ wife, Mrs Julie Waters, and their two young daughters had lived there with him until September 2000 when she had left with the children. Mr Waters had a close and supportive family. It was thought by various family members that Mr Waters suffered from an obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) a symptom of which was his hoarding of the many objects which filled his back yard and were starting to make their way into the back rooms of his home.

In physical terms, Mr Waters was larger than you were. At the time of his death he worked as a self employed gardener. He tended to be volatile and this had caused him some difficulties in his personal life and in his past employment.

Mr Waters had been devastated by the separation from his wife and wished to be reunited with his family. At first Mrs Waters had kept her address secret from him, but soon disclosed it and was visiting her husband at Golf Road to enable him to see his children. After the separation Mr Waters had started attending a self help group for sufferers of OCD and was visiting a psychiatrist who was treating him for an adjustment disorder relating to his distress at the breakdown of his marriage. Mrs Julie Waters and his parents were also involved in this treatment.

You and Mrs Waters had got to know each other when…

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 Lees

Details

AGLC: R v Lees [2004] VSC 187
Case: [2004] VSC 187
Decision Date: 27 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lees involved the defendant, Lees, who was charged with the murder of an individual who had gone missing after being last seen in Lees' company. The case was heard in a higher court, where the defendant was ultimately convicted of the offence. The core of the dispute was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, given the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's actions post-offence.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was the severity of the sentence to be imposed on Lees, considering the nature of the crime, the disposal of the body in remote bushland, and Lees' conduct following the offence, which indicated a lack of remorse and an unlikelihood of reform. The court also had to weigh the fact that this was Lees' first offence and his plea of not guilty.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the aggravating factors, including the disposal of the body and the absence of remorse. Despite Lees' plea of not guilty and the absence of a definitively established cause of death, the court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Lees' guilt. The court found that the disposal of the body in a remote location and the post-offence conduct were significant aggravating factors, reflecting a severe breach of public trust and morality. The court determined that these factors, combined with the heinous nature of the crime, warranted a lengthy prison sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Lees to imprisonment for 20 years, with a non-parole period of 16 years. This decision reflected the gravity of the crime and the need for substantial deterrence and incapacitation.

Orders