R v Marden - [2000] VSC 558

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1465 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ROBERT KEITH MARDEN

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 NOVEMBER 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 558

---

CATCHWORDS: Guilty plea to manslaughter – Suicide pact – R. v. Iannazzone [1983] 1 V.R. 649 – Suspended sentenced imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. S. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. B. Halpin	M.D. Motherwell

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Marden, I have already indicated my view that a sentence of imprisonment, the service of which should be suspended, should be imposed in your case. I will now provide my reasons for so concluding.

Robert Keith Marden, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter, at Beaumaris in the State of Victoria on 18 June 2000, of your wife, Joan Bernice Marden.

I note and take into account in your favour that you have no criminal history of any kind, and I accept that you have hitherto conducted yourself as a person of good character.

The background to and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime for which I must now impose sentence upon you have not been the subject of any controversy. They have been outlined by your counsel, Mr Halpin, in a helpful collection of materials taken largely from the depositions which were presented to the Court prior to the hearing of the plea. No objection has been advanced by the prosecution with respect to the accuracy of the picture thus shown. I need only set out that background in a relatively brief form at this stage.

Both your wife, to whom you had been married for approximately 48 years, and you had an extensive history of poor health.

Mrs Marden suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for a substantial period of time, necessitating operations on her ankles, wrists, elbows and two knee replacements. She was on constant medication that did little, however, to relieve per pain and continuing discomfort. She was unable to perform everyday tasks, such as dressing herself, and she had tremendous difficulty walking, even with the aid of a frame. You undertook the responsibility of caring for her, and obviously must have spent a substantial part of each day doing so over a quite long period.

With respect to your own health situation, I note that, in 1996, you developed angina which led to cardiac surgery and the insertion of a pacemaker. You were classified as an "Extremely Disabled Veteran" in 1997 by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Last year, you suffered a serious cardiac episode and, earlier this year, you were diagnosed as having lung cancer. That news naturally caused your wife and yourself a great deal of distress. You were admitted to the Alfred Hospital for major surgery but this did not eventuate as the diagnosis was discovered to be incorrect. A few months later, you fractured a vertebrae at the base of your spine which hospitalised you for four weeks…

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 Marden

Details

AGLC: R v Marden [2000] VSC 558
Case: [2000] VSC 558
Decision Date: 21 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Marden involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from an incident in which the defendant, together with another individual, had entered into a suicide pact and both attempted to take their own lives. Unfortunately, only one of them died, leading to the defendant being charged with manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case, specifically the suicide pact.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the context of a suicide pact. The court had to consider the principles set out in R v Iannazzone, where the High Court held that a suicide pact does not exclude the possibility of a charge of manslaughter. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment with the circumstances of the case, including the defendant's guilty plea and remorse, as well as the impact of the suicide pact on the deceased and their family.

The County Court, in delivering its judgment, found that the circumstances of the suicide pact warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and remorse, as well as the tragic consequences of the suicide pact. In light of these factors, the court imposed a suspended sentence, taking into account the need for specific and general deterrence, as well as the rehabilitation of the defendant. The court concluded that a suspended sentence would best serve the interests of justice in this case.

The final orders of the court included the defendant being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for a period of three years. The defendant was also required to participate in a rehabilitation program and to have no contact with the deceased's family. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay a fine and make a donation to a mental health organisation.

Orders