R v Pavlis - [2018] VSC 440

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0338

THE QUEEN

PETER PAVLIS

Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Pavlis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 440

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Guilty plea – Accused aged 76 years – No relevant prior history – Otherwise of exemplary character – Early stages of dementing illness – Verdins – Specific deterrence and prospects of rehabilitation of little moment– General deterrence and denunciation given significant weight – Sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 12 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC	PICA Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Peter Pavlis, you have pleaded guilty to murder.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

On the morning of 25 July 2017 you drove to the home of Jennifer Borchardt and, there, killed her in a frenzied stabbing attack using a single edged weapon.

She suffered six incised injuries to the neck region and torso. Those stab wounds caused extensive trauma. Two of the wounds had posterior exit points. Additionally, Ms Borchardt suffered extensive defensive injuries to both her hands and fingers.

The horror of her last moments can barely be imagined. You were a man very much trusted by her. She had started to work in your company as a teenager and grew to become your business partner. She was encouraged to think that she was part of your “family” and, seemingly, viewed you as part of hers. You betrayed her trust, loyalty and affection in the most cruel way by brutally and needlessly ending her life. You arrived at Ms Borchardt’s home early on the morning of 25 July 2017 at about 7.00 am. She was still in her pyjamas. The vicious and determined attack then perpetrated by you ended her life on her kitchen floor sometime during the three and a half hours after your arrival.

The reason for your actions remains opaque. While there was some suggestion that you were jealous of or angry about the relationship she had recently formed with

Mr Robert Hansen, there is no evidence to support that theory and it was apparently proffered merely in an effort to explain the inexplicable. You have said to Associate Professor Stephen Macfarlane, who prepared a psychiatric report about you, that you discovered a box full of $100 notes in Ms Borchardt’s home that morning and it was that discovery that triggered your actions. That statement insinuates – falsely – that Ms Borchardt engaged in some form of financial misconduct. An audit of your company records shows no financial irregularity. And, no such box filled with money was found at the crime scene. I do not accept that it ever was there.

I am…

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 Pavlis

Details

AGLC: R v Pavlis [2018] VSC 440
Case: [2018] VSC 440
Decision Date: 9 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, aged 76, was convicted of murder following a guilty plea. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and the early stages of a dementing illness. The defence argued for a lenient sentence, taking into account the defendant's age and character, while the prosecution emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence.

The court considered various factors in sentencing, including the severity of the crime, the defendant's age, and the absence of a prior criminal record. The court found that, while specific deterrence and rehabilitation were of little relevance, general deterrence and denunciation held significant weight. In weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would serve to deter potential offenders and denounce the act of murder.

The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 17 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years. This sentence balanced the need for general deterrence and denunciation with the defendant's age and health status. The court concluded that this sentence would adequately fulfil the purposes of punishment while also considering the individual circumstances of the defendant.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders