R v Mailes & Bux - [2001] VSC 236

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1541 of 1999

THE QUEEN

JASON DESMOND MAILES AND MIRRIM CHARLES BUX

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 JUNE 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. MAILES AND BUX
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 236

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Murder – Armed robberies – Pre-planned assault by principal offender after humiliated in financial dispute – Victim bashed while offender enraged – Disposal of body by burial after encasing it in cement – Subsequent spree of armed robberies (eight) – Plea of guilty to all offences – History of psychiatric disturbance moderating general deterrence 16 years' imprisonment for murder and 4 years on each count of armed robbery – Total effective sentence after cumulation 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years - Second offender manslaughter followed by participation in armed robberies (four) – Pleas of guilty to all offences – Gambling addiction – Level of intellectual disability – Capacity for rehabilitation – Six years' imprisonment for manslaughter and 3 years on each count of armed robbery – Total effective sentence after cumulation 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. M. Sexton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mailes	Mr. A. Shwartz	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused Bux	Mr. I. Crisp	Michael J. Gleeson & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Jason Desmond Mailes and Mirrim Charles Bux, a number of orders have been sought under the Confiscation Act 1997.

Firstly, there are disposal orders relating generally to items used in the armed robberies; sought pursuant to s.77(1) of the Act. There is no defence objection to those orders and I propose to make them.

Secondly, there are several forfeiture orders sought pursuant to s.32(1) of the Act. Those relating to vehicles and equipment associated with the armed robberies were not pursued by the Crown for reasons enunciated in the plea hearing. However, an order is sought for the forfeiture of a Hilti DX450 nail gun. Since this was apparently hired out legitimately and in good faith (or at least there is no evidence to the contrary), I do not propose to order its forfeiture. It may be returned to its rightful owner.

Finally, orders were sought pursuant to s.86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 for compensation to the venues the subject of the armed robberies and an equipment hire firm. Given the sentences to be imposed, and the financial situation of the prisoners, I regard such an exercise as both futile and counterproductive. Accordingly, I decline to make those orders.

Jason Desmond Mailes, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Brett McDonald at Dandenong on 31 August 1999 and, Mirrim Charles Bux, you have pleaded guilty to his manslaughter. Additionally, you, Jason Mailes, have pleaded guilty to six armed robberies and two attempted armed robberies committed at various locations between 23 October and 2 December 1999, whilst you,…

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 Mailes & Bux

Details

AGLC: R v Mailes and Bux [2001] VSC 236
Case: [2001] VSC 236
Decision Date: 29 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mailes & Bux, the Court was tasked with sentencing two individuals who had participated in a series of serious criminal offences, including murder and armed robberies. The primary offender, Mailes, had committed murder and multiple armed robberies, while the secondary offender, Bux, was involved in manslaughter and four armed robberies. Both defendants had pleaded guilty to all charges.

The central legal issues before the Court were the appropriate sentences to be imposed, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the defendants' backgrounds, and the principles of sentencing. The Court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors presented by the defendants, including Mailes' history of psychiatric disturbance and Bux's level of intellectual disability and potential for rehabilitation.

The Court found that the premeditated nature of Mailes' crimes, including the disposal of the victim's body, warranted a severe sentence. Given his history of psychiatric issues, the Court imposed a 16-year sentence for murder, and 4 years on each count of armed robbery, resulting in a total effective sentence of 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. For Bux, the Court considered his gambling addiction and intellectual disability, along with his lesser role in the crimes, and sentenced him to 6 years for manslaughter, and 3 years on each count of armed robbery, resulting in a total effective sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.

The Court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the defendants' backgrounds and the mitigating factors, while also ensuring that the sentences appropriately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Orders