R v Maxwell - [2003] VSC 278

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1516 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ALEXANDER MAXWELL

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 APRIL 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 JUY 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v MAXWELL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 278

---

Sentence – Aid or abet suicide (s.6B(2) Crimes Act 1958) – Legal rationale for offence found in importance of human life and protection of vulnerable individuals – Elements of denunciation and general deterrence relevant – Varying degrees of moral culpability recognised – Expressed intention of wife to commit suicide – Efforts of offender to dissuade – Promise by offender to assist in the face of wife's great suffering – Offender provided assistance by purchasing items required and participating in the act itself – Offender of unblemished character – Appropriate to temper justice with mercy – Sentence of 18 months wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Dane SC and Mr J. Baum	McNamaras

HIS HONOUR:

Alexander Gamble Maxwell, you have pleaded guilty to aiding or abetting your wife, Margaret Maxwell, to commit suicide at Silverleaves on 19 October 2002. I must now sentence you for that offence. In order to do so, it is necessary to describe the circumstances surrounding your wife's death.

In November 1982, you were married at Wollongong, New South Wales, and, in October of the following year, the only child of your marriage, Daniel, was born. In 1989, the family moved to Melbourne leasing a residence in Peel Street, Kew. In September 1992, you purchased a block of land in Bruce Street, Silverleaves, on Phillip Island and subsequently kept a caravan there.

During this period you established a business which involved the maintenance of school buildings. Your wife was responsible for most of the business arrangements and the bookkeeping. In addition, she operated a tutorial service employing a large number of tutors. Your relationship appears to have been a harmonious one.

Unfortunately, in 1994 your wife (whom I will refer to from time to time as Margaret) was diagnosed with cancer of the left breast. In the ensuing years she researched the disease and pursued a vigorous regime of alternative medicines. She conducted a campaign not only to find the causes of her own cancer, but to cure herself of it, and, in doing so, to provide guidance and inspiration for others.

Mrs Maxwell emerges from the statements of her friends and the doctors she consulted as a strong-willed and single-minded person. It would be fair to say that she was the dominant partner in your marriage. She was also a private person who was very concerned about being in control of her own destiny. You emerge as a person forever prepared to support your wife in her initiatives and to provide whatever assistance she required. One family friend spoke of your absolute love for her.

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 Maxwell

Details

AGLC: R v Maxwell [2003] VSC 278
Case: [2003] VSC 278
Decision Date: 24 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Maxwell, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting his wife’s suicide under section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The case was heard and decided in a relevant Australian court. The central issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence given the complex circumstances surrounding the offence and the defendant’s character.

The court was tasked with balancing the principles of denunciation and general deterrence inherent in sentencing for such an offence with the moral culpability of the defendant and the mitigating factors of the case. Notably, the defendant had attempted to dissuade his wife from her suicidal intentions, and when she persisted, he made a promise to assist her in light of her significant suffering. Ultimately, he provided the means by which she committed suicide, fulfilling his promise. The court also considered the defendant’s unblemished character and the appropriateness of tempering justice with mercy.

The court concluded that while the offence was serious, the defendant's actions, though contributing to the suicide, were influenced by his wife’s expressed intent and his attempt to alleviate her suffering. Given the defendant’s unblemished character and the mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, which was wholly suspended. This decision reflects the court’s recognition of the varying degrees of moral culpability and the need to consider personal circumstances in sentencing.

Orders