R v Penglase - [2011] VSC 356

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0050 of 2011

THE QUEEN

GRAEME ANTHONY PENGLASE

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 July 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Penglase
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 356

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Plea of Guilty – Very serious example of murder – Murder of spouse in front of children.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D. Karamicov	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. Leighfield with Ms C. Boston	Peter Dunn & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Graeme Anthony Penglase, on 20 May 2011 you pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife, Joanne, on 5 June 2010. She was 39 years old.

You killed your wife in the family home at 106 Grigg Road, Koondrook. In the months leading up to the murder, you had been working in Western Australia and had returned home on leave on Thursday 3 June 2010. You had been away for about a month.

Your relationship with your wife was a difficult one and, although you had been married for 14 years, there had been difficulties after you assaulted her in February 2005. At about that time, you attempted suicide. In addition to difficulties with your marriage, you had lost your licence and were worried about becoming unemployed.

Following the assault, your wife left you, taking your children, Tea, who was then six, and Tyler, who was then four, with her. About a year later, she returned for the sake of the children. Not long before these events, however, your wife had decided that she wanted to permanently separate from you. You did not want to accept her decision and contacted her often asserting your love for her.

On Saturday 5 June 2010, you, your wife and two children spent the day at the local sports ground. You arrived at 8.30am to watch your son, Tyler, play football. You began drinking at about 9.00am.

After returning home at about 6.30pm, you and your family went to the Barham Hotel for dinner. All of you left the hotel at about 10.00pm by taxi. When in the taxi, you and your wife, Joanne, argued about who should pay the fare. In any event, you left your wife to pay the fare, which she did.

After she came into the house, the children went to bed, but the argument continued. Your daughter, Tea, tried twice to stop you as she was trying to sleep. The second time, she was in tears. On that second occasion, she found you sitting on top of her mother, who was yelling “No, get off me”. You went outside for a cigarette, but in a fit of anger, you threw a stubby at the toilet door, damaging it. Your wife consoled your daughter before leaving her with you and going to check on Tyler, who was also upset. Tea was then…

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 Penglase

Details

AGLC: R v Penglase [2011] VSC 356
Case: [2011] VSC 356
Decision Date: 28 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Penglase, the defendant was convicted of the murder of his spouse in a very serious example of the crime, committed in the presence of the couple's children. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. The defendant, Penglase, pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, acknowledging his responsibility for the brutal act.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for a crime of this nature, given the particular circumstances of the case. The court needed to consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on the victims' family, and the mitigating factors presented by the defence. Given the defendant's guilty plea and the heinous nature of the crime, the court was tasked with imposing a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

The court, in delivering its judgment, recognised the profound impact of the crime on the victims and their family. The brutality and premeditation of the act, coupled with the fact that it occurred in the presence of the couple's children, were critical factors in the sentencing process. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that would not only reflect the gravity of the crime but also serve as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar acts. After considering the evidence and submissions, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period set at 25 years, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for public protection.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a life sentence for the defendant, with a non-parole period of 25 years. This decision underscores the gravity of the crime and the importance of ensuring public safety, while also considering the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation over time.

Orders