R v McPhee - [2013] VSC 581

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MILDURA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0122

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN ALLAN McPHEE

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	21 October 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 October 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v McPhee
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 581

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Plea of guilty – Victim spouse – Actions inexplicable – Full and frank admissions – Remorse – Favourable prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A. Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. McMahon	Leanne Warren & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Stephen Allan McPhee, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife, Cathy Mary McPhee. No prior convictions are alleged against you.

You met Mrs McPhee in 2005 and the two of you married in October 2008. You lived together at your house in Seventeenth Street, Mildura. The marriage, in the earlier years, had been a happy one. However, by 2011 the relationship between you began to deteriorate. Mrs McPhee complained of your alcohol consumption and viewing of pornography. She suspected you were having an affair with a work colleague, which you denied. She hired a private investigator, who kept you under surveillance for three days, but was unable to substantiate the allegation. Others observed you to be jealous and possessive towards Mrs McPhee.

In November 2011, Mrs McPhee consulted a psychologist, expressing concern at the state of her marriage and uncertainty as to whether she wanted it to continue. During 2012, she attended at least six further sessions with the psychologist, a number of which you also attended. At such a meeting in December 2012, when Mrs McPhee said she regarded the marriage as over, you became agitated and aggressive, and said that you might as well kill yourself and throw yourself in front of a truck. Mrs McPhee told the psychologist that you had previously produced a knife and threatened to self-harm. You and Mrs McPhee also consulted a solicitor in September 2012 and discussed plans for Mrs McPhee to move back to the property she owned in Deakin Avenue, and financial arrangements in the event of a separation. Indeed, you had obtained a loan against your mortgage with a view to making good the house at Deakin Avenue and building a granny flat at the rear to facilitate a trial separation. So it is that by the end of 2012, the parlous state of your marriage was well known to you.

On 29 December of that year, Mrs McPhee travelled to Melbourne to spend time with three of her sons over the new year period. During this visit she told her son, Jason Holtham, that 2012 had been one of the hardest years of her life and that she wanted 2013 to mark a new beginning and to be the start of happier times. She also told him that she was concerned about…

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 McPhee

Details

AGLC: R v McPhee [2013] VSC 581
Case: [2013] VSC 581
Decision Date: 22 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a plea of guilty to murder by the respondent, McPhee, who had killed his spouse. The dispute arose from the mitigating factors presented by McPhee's legal team and the prosecution's argument for a severe sentence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide included the appropriate weight to be given to the mitigating factors presented and the appropriate sentence considering the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. Key considerations included the full and frank admissions of guilt by McPhee, the inexplicable nature of his actions, and his expressed remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but also recognised the mitigating factors presented. McPhee had shown remorse and had favourable prospects of rehabilitation. The court found that while the actions were inexplicable, the full and frank admissions, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation warranted consideration. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that balanced the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders included a sentence that reflected the mitigating factors while also ensuring public safety and justice for the victim. The specific details of the sentence were not disclosed in the text provided.

Orders