R v Leigh - [2019] VSC 378

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S CR 2018 0284

THE QUEEN
v
JIM HANS LEIGH	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 June 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Leigh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 378

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Planned murder of friend to avoid repayment of debt – Victim lured into bathroom and stabbed 34 times to neck and back – Steps taken to avoid responsibility – Confession during interview, but false explanation given for crime – Early plea of guilty - Limited remorse – No prior convictions - Standard sentence scheme – Instinctive synthesis – Very serious example of offence - Above middle range of seriousness – High moral culpability – Just punishment – Denunciation - General deterrence - Protection of community – Sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 22 years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 33 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 26 years – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA and 11A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Richard Blackwell	Simon English Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Jim Hans Leigh, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Brian Recourt in Montmorency on 27 June 2018.

The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment. It is a category 1 offence and a standard sentence offence.

Background

Mr Recourt was born in 1971 and was 47 years old at the time of his death. He was a qualified carpenter and joiner who later worked as a prison officer at Port Phillip Prison until he sustained a serious workplace injury to his back, forcing his retirement in 2011. He received a lump sum payment from WorkCover of $232,500 in January 2015, and was in receipt of WorkCover payments at the time of his death. Mr Recourt was significantly physically disabled as a result of the back injury which he sustained at work. He walked with the aid of a crutch at the time of his death.

Mr Recourt met his wife Carolyn[1] in 1994 and they purchased a home together at 11 Wilson Avenue, Montmorency. In 2018, they separated. Mr Recourt continued living at the house, which was the location in which he was to meet his death. He and Carolyn were in the process of arranging a financial settlement at the time of his death.
[1]Mrs Recourt’s correct name is Anita Carolyn Recourt, but she goes by the name of Carolyn.

You were born Jimmie Schoenfeld on 24 May 1965, one of 6 siblings. In August 2000, you legally changed your name to Jim Hans Leigh. You lived in Springvale with your de facto wife and two young children at the time of the offence.

Your working life, in which you put yourself forward…

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 Leigh

Details

AGLC: R v Leigh [2019] VSC 378
Case: [2019] VSC 378
Decision Date: 7 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Leigh, the respondent was convicted of the premeditated murder of his friend to avoid repaying a debt. The victim was lured into the bathroom and stabbed 34 times in the neck and back. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the respondent’s early plea of guilty, limited remorse, and lack of prior convictions, as well as the gravity of the crime and the moral culpability of the respondent.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the severity of the offence, the respondent’s culpability, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991. The court had to determine the appropriate range of seriousness for the offence, consider the instinctual synthesis of the facts, and balance the purposes of sentencing including denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the community.

The court found that the offence was a very serious example of murder, above the middle range of seriousness, with high moral culpability due to the premeditation and brutality of the crime. The respondent’s early plea of guilty and limited remorse were considered in mitigation, as was the absence of prior convictions. However, the court also noted the steps taken by the respondent to avoid responsibility and the false explanation given for the crime during the interview. Applying the standard sentence scheme and considering all relevant factors, the court imposed a sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years. The court noted that but for the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been 33 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 26 years.

Orders