R v McKinley - [2000] VSC 287

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1453 of 1999

THE QUEEN

JULIE KAY McKINLEY

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 JULY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 287

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Arson with intent, aggravated burglary, child stealing – Premeditated and planned act of stealing – Abuse of trust of vulnerable victim – Previous perpetrator of predatory offences – Mitigating factors: Disturbed emotional state at time – Prior psychological trauma – Plea of guilty to child stealing – Good prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. G. Horgan

Peter Wood

Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr. I. Hayden

Ellinghaus & Lindner

HIS HONOUR:

Application was made by the Crown for an order that Julie McKinley provide a blood sample pursuant to s.464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958; that application was the subject of consent and accordingly I make the order sought.

I am further required by the legislation to explain to Ms McKinley that the police may use reasonable force that the forensic procedure involved may be carried out.

Ms McKinley, I have ordered that you provide the police with a DNA sample being a blood sample. The procedure is simple and quick and should only involve a pin prick. It can easily be performed with your co-operation; however, the law also provides that the police may use reasonable force to enable the procedure to be conducted. No doubt your barrister will explain the matter further to you. I will also make the disposal order which again is the subject of consent.

Julie Kay McKinley, you have pleaded guilty to arson with intent, aggravated burglary and child stealing. Your pleas of guilty to arson with intent and aggravated burglary followed negotiations with the Crown after a trial on these and other charges was discontinued on the 13 June of this year. You have always pleaded guilty to the offence of child stealing.

In deciding what sentences are appropriate it is necessary to set out not only the facts surrounding the commission of these offences but also to examine those factors which motivated you to commit them, including your background.

You were born in July 1964. Your father was in the Australian Army stationed at Holdsworthy and at the age of eight you were raped on a number of occasions by another soldier. At the age of 13, apparently ignorant of the facts of life, you became pregnant to Alan Stevenson who was your 17 year old boyfriend. When, after seven months your pregnancy was revealed to your parents, you were sent off to relatives in order to keep the matter secret. Your child, a baby boy, was born at the Royal Women's Hospital, Crown Street Sydney in December 1977. You saw the baby fleetingly before it was taken away to be adopted out against your will.

Contact with Alan Stevenson was forbidden by your father and letters he wrote to you were intercepted…

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 McKinley

Details

AGLC: R v McKinley [2000] VSC 287
Case: [2000] VSC 287
Decision Date: 18 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McKinley, the respondent, McKinley, stood trial in the County Court of Victoria. McKinley faced multiple charges, including arson with intent, aggravated burglary, and child stealing. The prosecution alleged that McKinley had premeditated and executed a complex plan to commit these offences, abusing the trust of a vulnerable victim. The case required the court to consider various legal issues, such as the seriousness of the crimes, the degree of planning and premeditation, and the relevance of the respondent's background and mitigating factors.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for McKinley, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the mitigating circumstances presented. The prosecution argued for a substantial custodial sentence, given the premeditated nature of the crimes and the vulnerability of the victim. The defence, however, highlighted McKinley's plea of guilty to the child stealing charge, their disturbed emotional state at the time of the offences, prior psychological trauma, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court needed to balance these factors against the severity of the crimes to arrive at a just outcome.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, noting the premeditated and planned nature of the crimes and the abuse of trust involved. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the respondent's plea of guilty, their emotional state, prior trauma, and prospects for rehabilitation. After weighing these considerations, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary but balanced it with opportunities for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced McKinley to a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions aimed at facilitating their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders included a custodial sentence for McKinley, with specific directives for rehabilitation and reintegration programs to be undertaken during their incarceration. The court also imposed conditions to support McKinley's rehabilitation post-release, recognising the importance of addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour.

Orders