R v Maddigan - [2016] VSC 790

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0056

THE QUEEN
v
BOWE EVAN LEVI MADDIGAN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Wangaratta
DATES OF HEARING:	10 & 11 November 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Maddigan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 790

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Murder – Indecent act with a child under 16 – Pleas of guilty Child aged 11 murdered in her home – Sexual molestation preceded killing - Remorse – Utilitarian benefit of plea – Victim impact statements – Wide effect in the community – Indigenous background of deprivation – Depressive disorder – Relevant criminal history – Prospects for rehabilitation - Life sentence - Comparative cases – Minimum non-parole period 28 years – Section 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Director John Champion SC with Ms Francesca Holmes	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Marsh	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Bowe Evan Levi Maddigan, on 12 August 2016 in this Court you pleaded guilty to the two charges in the indictment being, first, the murder of Z and secondly, willfully committing an indecent act on Z, a child under the age of 16. Both of these offences were committed by you at Wangaratta on 25 October 2015.

On 10 & 11 November 2016, I heard an opening on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, victim impact statements and submissions on sentence from counsel on your behalf and the Director. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for willfully committing an indecent act on a child under the age of 16 years is 10 years imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these very serious offences

Circumstances of offending

Z was born on 8 August 2004 to Janelle Saunders and Stephen Buttigieg. She was a little over 11 years old at the time you caused her death on 25 October 2015. Her father had died as a result of suicide on 3 July 2010. In 2012, Z’s mother commenced a relationship with a man named Joseph Duke.

At the time you committed these offences on 25 October 2015, you were almost 30 years old. Nineteen days earlier, on 6 October 2015, you were released from custody after serving the remainder of a sentence for breaching your parole for offences for which you were sentenced in the County Court in 2011. I will return to those matters later in these reasons.

Sometime after being released from prison you travelled to Wangaratta and resided with a man named Steven Murray. On 17 October, you were introduced to Janelle Saunders and her daughter Z when you and Murray went to their premises in Wangaratta.

A week later, on Saturday 24 October 2015, Z and her mother went to Melbourne for a birthday party and spent the day there. That same day you, Duke, Murray…

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 Maddigan

Details

AGLC: R v Maddigan [2016] VSC 790
Case: [2016] VSC 790
Decision Date: 19 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Maddigan, the appellant was convicted of the murder of an 11-year-old child, which included an indecent act. The accused, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 years. The case was heard in a higher court, which was asked to review the sentence imposed by a lower court. The primary issues for the court were the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the crime's severity and the factors that should be considered in determining the minimum non-parole period.

The court reviewed the arguments regarding the severity of the crime, which included the sexual molestation of the child prior to her murder, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the broader community. The court also considered the appellant's remorse, the utilitarian benefits of his guilty plea, and the victim impact statements. Additionally, the court examined the appellant's background, which included indigenous heritage, a history of deprivation, and a depressive disorder. The court also considered the appellant's criminal history and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime and the appellant's lack of remorse. The court noted that the crime had a wide effect in the community, and the appellant's guilty plea and remorse were not significant enough to warrant a reduction in sentence. The court also considered the appellant's background and criminal history, but ultimately found that the severity of the crime outweighed these factors. The court compared the sentence to other cases of similar severity and found that the sentence was appropriate. The minimum non-parole period of 28 years was also deemed appropriate, taking into account the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and the need to protect the community.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, with the non-parole period of 28 years. The court found that the sentence was just and appropriate, taking into account all the relevant factors. The court also noted that the sentence would provide deterrence and protection to the community. The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders