R v Markham - [2004] VSC 443

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1432 of 2004

THE QUEEN

HOWARD ROYSTON MARKHAM

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 October 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 November 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Markham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 443

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Attempted murder – Shooting of victim motivated by animosity and by promise of payment of $10,000 – Plea of guilty – Eleven years’ imprisonment with minimum of eight years.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr B. Kayser

Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr S.E. Grant with

Mr M.E. Dempsey

Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

You, Howard Royston Markham, have pleaded guilty before me to the attempted murder of Darryl Adrian Denman. This crime carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.

In December 2002 your victim, Darryl Denman who was then aged 32 years, lived in Cascade Street, Frankston North.

For a period of time leading up to Wednesday, 18 December 2002 you had monitored the movements of your victim. Your attack upon him was carefully planned. You knew that it was his usual practice to warm up his car in his driveway before leaving for work at around 7.00 am.

That morning you drove a vehicle owned by an associate of yours, one Glen Chase, to the vicinity of your victim’s home. There you put on a balaclava and boots you had earlier obtained. The boots were several sizes larger than your shoe size and were worn by you with the intention of not leaving any footprints which could be traced to you. Likewise, under the balaclava you placed plastic and a stocking so as to avoid leaving any DNA material on the balaclava. You wore gloves taped to your upper clothing for a similar purpose.

At 6.50 am your victim emerged from his front door and entered his vehicle which was parked in his driveway. Unbeknownst to him, you were waiting in ambush for him. However, rather than warming up his car as was expected by you, Mr Denman started the engine and immediately reversed. As he did so you approached his car and fired a single blast from a sawn‑off shotgun which you then had in your possession. That shot was aimed toward the victim’s head and was fired from a distance of about one metre. The blast penetrated the victim’s rear off-side window and the driver’s headrest and struck him to the back of the neck and shoulder area. Mr Denman pressed his foot onto the accelerator and his car reversed across the roadway outside his premises and came to rest by colliding into a cyclone wire fence of the golf course on the opposite side of the road. The shotgun held by you ejected the fired cartridge case onto the victim’s driveway. Undeterred by the consequences of your first shot you then walked towards the front of the victim’s car and attempted…

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 Markham

Details

AGLC: R v Markham [2004] VSC 443
Case: [2004] VSC 443
Decision Date: 8 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Markham, the defendant, Markham, pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of a victim. The shooting was motivated by a combination of personal animosity and a financial incentive of $10,000. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Markham, taking into account the severity of the crime and the defendant's guilty plea.

The court was tasked with balancing the gravity of the attempted murder, the defendant's motivation, and the mitigating factor of his early guilty plea. The sentencing judge acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, which involved a deliberate act of violence aimed at the victim's life. However, the court also considered the defendant's admission of guilt and the absence of any previous criminal record. The court concluded that the crime warranted a significant penalty, but also recognised the importance of the defendant's early guilty plea as a mitigating factor.

After weighing these factors, the court imposed a sentence of eleven years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years. This decision reflected the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's personal animosity towards the victim, and the financial motive, while also taking into account the benefit of Markham's early guilty plea. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the case.

The final orders of the court mandated that Markham serve eleven years in prison, with a minimum non-parole period of eight years. This sentence aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the acknowledgment of Markham's early guilty plea.

Orders