R v McKeown - [2004] VSC 205

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1448 of 2003

THE QUEEN

TREVOR JOHN McKEOWN

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 April 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v McKeown
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 205

---

CRIMINAL - Sentencing – Conviction by jury of murder – Lengthy criminal history – Prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence 16 years with minimum of 12 years before eligibility for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Saunders	C. and H. Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

You, Trevor John McKeown, have been found guilty after a trial by jury of the murder of Richard Van Zanten at Chadstone on 16 July 2002. The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment.

This crime arises out of an incident which occurred in the evening of 16 July 2002 at the home of your partner, Suzanne Langdon, at 17 Amaroo Street in Chadstone. Suzanne Langdon had formerly been engaged in a de facto relationship with the deceased, Richard Van Zanten, between about 1992 and May 2002. That relationship had produced one child, a boy, who was born in January 1996.

Both the deceased and Suzanne Langdon were heroin addicts throughout the period of their relationship and, indeed, as is apparent from the evidence before the jury subsequently.

The evidence before the jury demonstrated that the relationship between Suzanne Langdon and the deceased was volatile indeed. You had known Suzanne Langdon for approximately 10 years. Shortly after the separation of Suzanne Langdon from the deceased in May of 2002 you commenced a relationship with her and commenced to live with her at her house in Amaroo Street, Chadstone.

On the morning of 16 July 2002 the deceased telephoned Suzanne Langdon seeking to have a discussion with her about maintenance and other matters. Suzanne Langdon agreed to meet the deceased at Richmond Railway Station for this purpose. Subsequently in the afternoon of that day, the deceased, by telephone, and in the course of a number of telephone calls, informed Suzanne Langdon that he intended to attend at her home in Amaroo Street. As I said, a series of phone calls took place between Suzanne Langdon and the deceased about this matter during which time Suzanne Langdon demanded that the deceased not attend at her home. She became increasingly agitated about the matter.

In the late afternoon you left work and attended at Suzanne Langdon's mother's house where Suzanne Langdon and her mother and others were present. Shortly thereafter Suzanne Langdon left her mother's house and walked to a nearby bottle shop to purchase alcohol. On her return walk a short time later, she walked past her house at 17 Amaroo Street and became suspicious that the deceased man was at her house.

She returned to her mother's home which was nearby and where you were then…

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 McKeown

Details

AGLC: R v McKeown [2004] VSC 205
Case: [2004] VSC 205
Decision Date: 15 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McKeown, the defendant was convicted by a jury of murder and faced sentencing. The court had to consider the length of McKeown's criminal history and his prospects of rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. The matter was heard in a higher court in Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, taking into account McKeown's extensive criminal history and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court recognised McKeown's lengthy criminal history, which included multiple serious offences, as a significant factor in assessing his culpability and the risk he posed to society. However, the court also considered his prospects for rehabilitation, including his age, personal circumstances, and any evidence of remorse or efforts to reform. The court found that while McKeown's criminal history was substantial, there were some indications of potential for rehabilitation. Balancing these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder was a term of imprisonment of 16 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, McKeown's criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and arguments presented. The court recognised the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society, while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The sentence imposed was intended to balance these competing considerations and provide a just outcome for all parties involved. The final orders of the court were that McKeown be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Orders