R v Mulhall - [2012] VSC 471

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. SCR 0085 of 2012

THE QUEEN

JAMES MARTIN MULHALL

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 October 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 October 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mulhall
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 471

---

Plea guilty - Murder, drug and alcohol consumption, intervention order in place re charges of assault, domestic killing, post offence conduct – an aggravating feature.
Sentence 19 Years – minimum of 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC	Emma Turnbull Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

James Martin Mulhall you have pleaded guilty to murdering Joy Rowley on 14 October 2011. Joy Rowley was 60 years of age when she died. You were 57 at that time and you are now aged 58, having been born on 13 January 1954 in Dublin, Ireland. The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment.

You have a criminal history that is sporadic. It commences in 1972 with one count of negligence causing grievous bodily harm which apparently related to the discharge of a loaded .22 that was owned by the landlord of the house where you were living and which was not thought to be loaded. It was, your counsel submitted, irresponsible clowning around that caused it to be discharged. The bullet discharged and hit your then wife with whom, at that stage, you had a very good relationship. I accept that submission as it is consistent with the sentence that was imposed of being released on a $50 good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months.

There followed in 1973 and 1974 three counts of wilful and obscene exposure in public, initially resulting in an adjourned bond, then 6 months’ imprisonment with a minimum of 3 months and finally probation including psychiatric conditions. Your counsel informs me all of those related to light hearted mucking around. Whilst I am not entirely confident about your version of it, they were a very substantial time ago and of not great significance to the offending for which I am to sentence you. You also had a count of larceny in a dwelling in 1973 for which you received 2 years’ probation.

You next have offences that occurred in 1996 being some 22 years later. They were a count of burglary, two counts of theft, unlicensed driving and a count referred to as engage in conduct causing physical harm. The latter charge is in fact what is referred to as conduct endangering a person and related to the shop break and theft with which you were involved. A person ran out to stop you and when you were driving the car away from the scene, that person was placed in danger. You received a 6 months’ sentence of imprisonment suspended for 12 months. You had to perform community work, pay restitution and…

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 Mulhall

Details

AGLC: R v Mulhall [2012] VSC 471
Case: [2012] VSC 471
Decision Date: 10 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mulhall involved a dispute between the Crown and the accused, Mulhall, concerning charges of murder and related offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Nettle. The incident at hand involved the killing of a woman in what the prosecution argued was a domestic context, compounded by prior charges of assault and a pre-existing intervention order against Mulhall. The Crown sought a severe sentence, highlighting the aggravating factors of the case, including the victim's drug and alcohol consumption at the time of the incident and Mulhall's post-offence conduct.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the appropriate sentencing for a premeditated and violent act of murder, particularly given the aggravating factors and the history of domestic violence between the parties. The court had to weigh the severity of the crime, the mitigating factors, and the necessity to deter future acts of violence. The defence argued for a lesser sentence, citing potential mitigating circumstances such as the influence of alcohol and drugs, as well as Mulhall's background and personal circumstances.

Justice Nettle considered the gravity of the offence, the history of violence, and the impact on the victim's family. The court found that the murder was premeditated and executed in a domestic setting, with aggravating factors including the presence of an intervention order and Mulhall's post-offence conduct. The judge determined that a significant sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to serve as a deterrent. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mulhall to 19 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the need for justice for the victim and her family.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mulhall serve 19 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years, reflecting the court's assessment of the severity of the crime and the need for an appropriate punitive measure.

Orders