Legal Research
Cases
R v Quarry

R v Quarry

Case [2005] VSCA 65 6 April 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 19 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
BRENT DAVID QUARRY

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., BATT and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 April 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 65	First Revision – 7^th April 2005

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Murder – Killing by father of 10 week-old child – Horrific and violent crime – Long criminal history – Current suspended custodial sentence – Life sentence appropriate – Minimum term of 24 years – Not manifestly excessive – Plea of guilty to murder will not necessarily avoid the imposition of a life sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan QC, DPP with Mr M.A. Gamble	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

WARREN, C.J.:

Brent David Quarry was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court on 6 February 2004 of causing injury intentionally (count 1), murder (count 2) and causing injury recklessly (count 3). He pleaded guilty to all counts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a minimum term of 24 years was fixed and a pre-sentence detention period was declared of 548 days. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted on 3 September 2004.

The appellant pleads on the first ground that in all the circumstances of the case the sentence was manifestly excessive in that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the appellant’s plea of guilty. Leave was granted to the appellant to amend the grounds of appeal by adding the ground of error in sentencing on the basis of a purported principle that the intentional killing of a child without significant mitigating factor will ordinarily attract a life sentence. This constituted the second ground.

The offences occurred on 7 August 2002 when the appellant and his de facto partner, Sonia Elizabeth Tate, and their ten week old daughter, Sharni Montaana Quarry, were living in a flat on the ground floor in a block of flats at Moorabbin. At approximately 3.00pm in the afternoon the appellant and Tate started drinking and consumed anti depressant tablets. By around 10.00pm an argument developed between the appellant and Tate. The infant, Sharni Quarry, was asleep at the time in a bassinette in the lounge room of the flat. The appellant assaulted Tate injuring her face (making her nose bleed), her arms and upper body. The assault constituted count 1. Tate escaped from the flat and ran upstairs to a neighbour’s flat. The appellant followed and spoke to the neighbour, Laura Lidker, at the front door of her flat. The appellant was persuaded that Tate would go back downstairs in about half an hour. The appellant then returned downstairs to his flat. After waiting for about half an hour, the appellant went back upstairs and banged on Lidker’s door. It was not answered. The appellant went back downstairs. During this time the infant remained in the…

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 Quarry

Details

AGLC: R v Quarry [2005] VSCA 65
Case: [2005] VSCA 65
Decision Date: 6 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quarry came before the court as an appeal against a sentence imposed for the murder of a 10-week-old child. The appellant, the child's father, had a long history of criminal activity and had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The trial judge had imposed a life sentence, with a minimum term of 24 years, which the appellant now sought to challenge. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the plea of guilty should have resulted in a different outcome.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was unduly harsh, particularly in light of the appellant's guilty plea. However, the court needed to weigh this against the gravity of the offence, the appellant's history of criminal conduct, and the need to deter such heinous acts in the future.

In considering these factors, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the horrific and violent nature of the crime, the appellant's extensive criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that a plea of guilty does not necessarily preclude the imposition of a life sentence in cases of murder. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence, and thus upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court did not alter the sentence and affirmed the life imprisonment term with a minimum of 24 years. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place.

Orders