R v Meade - [2013] VSC 682

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0092

THE QUEEN

ROBERT ARTHUR MEADE

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 December 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Meade
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 682

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence following trial for murder – Premeditated killing – Former wife struck to the head at least twice with blunt object – Motive to prevent children from being relocated overseas – Lack of mitigating circumstances – Sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 19 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R A Elston SC with Ms A Kapitaniak	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P J Morrissey SC with Mr D Cronin	Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Robert Arthur Meade, after a trial lasting some five weeks, you were convicted of the murder of your former wife, Sally Brooks. It is now my task to sentence you for that offence.

Sally Brooks died at the Royal Melbourne Hospital on 11 July 2011. Her death resulted from injuries that had been inflicted upon her when she was savagely attacked in her home at 11 Limassol Court, Donvale, some 10 days earlier, on 1 July 2011. She suffered multiple skull fractures, which led to fatal brain injuries, as a result of at least two blows having been delivered to her head with a blunt object.

Your defence was that you had nothing to do with that attack. The jury, however, concluded otherwise. The case against you was largely circumstantial, involving many witnesses, and a significant number of exhibits. A good part of that case consisted of statements that you yourself made to various people, both before and after Sally was attacked.

It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts upon which the Crown built its case, and to make some factual findings, consistent with the jury’s verdict, regarding your culpability.

Put simply, the prosecution case was that on the morning of 1 July 2011, you lay in wait for Sally, at your former family home in Limassol Court, having planned to kill her. Upon Sally’s return home from taking your children to school, and leaving her car at a local mechanic for a roadworthy certificate, you attacked and beat her with a blunt instrument. That attack took place shortly after 9.00am on that fateful morning.

There were no witnesses to the attack, nor was there any direct evidence linking you to it. Nonetheless, the prosecution contended that you had both motive and opportunity to murder your former wife, and that there was a substantial body of evidence to support its case that you had done so.

In order to understand the prosecution case in more detail, it is necessary to say something about the background of your relationship with your former wife.

Sally Brooks grew up in the United Kingdom. She…

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 Meade

Details

AGLC: R v Meade [2013] VSC 682
Case: [2013] VSC 682
Decision Date: 11 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meade arose from a tragic incident where the accused, Meade, was convicted of murdering his former wife. The incident involved the victim being struck to the head at least twice with a blunt object, resulting in her death. The underlying motive for the killing was to prevent the victim from relocating with their children overseas. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence to be imposed following a conviction for murder and the consideration of any mitigating factors. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offence against any circumstances that might reduce the culpability of the accused. The court also had to determine the length of the sentence and the non-parole period.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the premeditated nature of the crime and the lack of any significant mitigating factors. The court noted that the accused had planned the murder to prevent the victim from relocating with their children, highlighting a deliberate and malicious intent. The court acknowledged the absence of remorse and the absence of any substantial mitigating factors. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years. This sentence reflected the severity of the crime and the need to protect society.

The court ordered that Meade serve 23 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 19 years. This decision was grounded in the principles of retribution, deterrence, and the need to protect the community from further harm by the accused.

Orders