R v Loughnane - [2025] VSC 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0173

THE KING	Crown
v
TOBY LOUGHNANE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 November 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Loughnane
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 41

---

SENTENCE – Murder – Fatal assault of intimate partner in context of drug abuse and history of domestic violence – Offender disposed of deceased in shallow grave in bushland – After approximately two years, offender revealed location of shallow grave – Remains recovered – Priors for domestic violence – Offender maintaining innocence of murder – Head sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment – The Queen v Kilic [2016] 259 CLR 256 – DPP v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287 – Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226 – Walters v The Queen [2013] VSCA 164.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Churchill Ms S Holmes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms D Sala	Stary Law

HIS HONOUR:

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

Toby Loughnane, on 28 June 2024, a jury found you guilty of the murder of Maryam Hamka on 11 April 2021. The guilty verdict necessarily means that you fatally assaulted Ms Hamka intending to at least cause her really serious injury. The jury rejected your defence that Ms Hamka died from a drug overdose. You continue to deny your guilt of the murder.

You had been in an intimate relationship with Ms Hamka since January 2020. The relationship was marred by drugs, and violence on your part.

On the evening of 10 April 2021, you and Ms Hamka went to your Brighton apartment in Well St. The apartment belonged to your mother, who lives in New South Wales, but you were living there and renovating it. Ms Hamka would stay there from time to time.

Both you and Ms Hamka were addicted to drugs and both of you used drugs at the apartment as the night unfolded.

During the evening, Ms Hamka spoke twice over the phone with her friend Shane Allan, first at 10.17pm, then at 11.35pm. Allan advised her to get a taxi and leave because he thought she sounded out of it and unsafe. At 11.41pm, Ms Hamka sent Allan a message “Betting (sic) in a taxi soon.”

At 11.45pm when Ms Hamka was very drug affected and rolling around on the floor, naked from the waist down, you made a demeaning video of her which was later found by police. In the video, your voice can be heard, mocking her for, amongst other things, having had too much GHB or “juice”.

In the early hours of 11 April 2021, three neighbours in the same apartment block[1] heard sounds coming from your apartment, sounds of a woman in distress, screaming and sobbing. The noises went on for a couple of hours, subsiding around 3am.
[1]Bruce and Elizabeth…

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 Loughnane

Details

AGLC: R v Loughnane [2025] VSC 41
Case: [2025] VSC 41
Decision Date: 14 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Loughnane involved the conviction of the defendant, Loughnane, for the murder of his intimate partner. The victim's body was found in a shallow grave in bushland after Loughnane disclosed its location approximately two years after the murder. Loughnane maintained his innocence regarding the murder but admitted to disposing of the body. The case came before the court for sentencing following Loughnane's conviction. The legal issues centred on determining an appropriate sentence for the crime, considering Loughnane's history of drug abuse, domestic violence, and his disposal of the victim's body.

The court had to weigh various factors in sentencing, including the gravity of the offence, Loughnane's background, and the impact on the victim's family. The court referenced several precedents, including The Queen v Kilic, DPP v Ristevski, Skeates v The King, and Walters v The Queen, to guide its decision-making process. Loughnane's prior convictions for domestic violence and his actions post-offence were significant considerations. Despite Loughnane's denial of the murder, the court found him guilty of the crime.

The court ultimately imposed a head sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The decision reflected the severity of the crime, Loughnane's history of domestic violence, and the impact of his actions on the victim's family. The court aimed to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime while also considering Loughnane's background and the circumstances of the offence.

Orders