R v Margolis - [2021] VSC 341

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0119

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
ADAM MARGOLIS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 May 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Margolis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 341

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Convicted of murder after trial – Domestic violence – Offender’s behaviour influenced by post-traumatic stress disorder and severe personality disorder – Previous good character – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms B Goding	Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Self-represented

HIS HONOUR:

After a two week trial, a jury convicted you of the murder of Mai-Yia Vang, with whom you were in an intimate relationship.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and the standard sentence is 25 years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]In working out an appropriate sentence for your offence, I have had regard to a number of standard sentence cases in relation to murders committed in a domestic violence context: R v Cameron [2020] VSC 334; R v Eckersley [2020] VSC 22; R v Sturt [2020] VSC 317.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

You met Ms Vang online in January 2018. You were living by yourself in California Gully, a suburb of Bendigo. She was living in Wallan with family.

Ms Vang stayed with you for a couple of days in mid-February and moved in with you on 18 February 2018.

A week later she was dead.

It appears that, on the night of 24 to 25 February 2018, there was a protracted argument between the two of you at your home. It culminated in you applying a choke hold to her, your arm around her neck. She died from neck compression.

The issues at your trial were whether you killed her by a conscious, voluntary and deliberate act and, if so, whether you had murderous intent. The jury’s verdict means they were satisfied of those matters.

After killing Ms Vang, you did a number of things, including the following: first, you made out that Ms Vang was still alive by sending messages, purportedly from her, in response to messages from her sisters; second, you composed a lengthy email titled “I HAVE KILLED A WOMAN AND COMMITTED SUICIDE”, which you arranged to be sent on a seven-hour time delay to three men that you knew from a church group. I will refer to this email hereafter as your suicide note. One of your primary concerns in your suicide note was that someone look after your cats; third, you tried to kill yourself – initially, by gassing yourself in your car (which attempt you aborted because your cats became distressed) and, later, by taking an overdose of pills.

One of the recipients of your suicide note dated 26 February 2018 called police, who attended your home late…

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 Margolis

Details

AGLC: R v Margolis [2021] VSC 341
Case: [2021] VSC 341
Decision Date: 15 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Margolis, was convicted of murder in the County Court of Victoria. The victim, Margolis’ partner, was killed during a violent altercation. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which included Justices Harper, Redlich and Nettle. The appeal centered on the sentence imposed on Margolis, who was found to have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a severe personality disorder at the time of the offence. The appellant’s counsel argued that the sentence should have taken into account these mitigating factors, as well as the appellant’s previous good character.

The court was required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The court considered the principles set out in R v Verdins, which emphasise the importance of considering mitigating factors at the sentencing stage. The court also considered the impact of the appellant’s mental health issues on his behaviour, and whether these issues should have been taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The court noted that the appellant’s mental health issues and previous good character were relevant considerations that should have been taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and ordered that the case be remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant mitigating factors at the sentencing stage, and the need for sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The court did not make any final orders in this case, as the matter was remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing. However, the court’s decision highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors at the sentencing stage, particularly where the offender is suffering from mental health issues or has a history of good character. The decision also reinforces the principle that sentences should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

Orders