R v Rendle - [2005] VSCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 45 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
MATTHEW CHARLES RENDLE

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHERNOV, J.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 February 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 52

---

Criminal Law - Murder - Sentencing - Appellant intellectually impaired - Whether sentencing judge failed properly to take into account the appellant's intellectual impairment - Finding that offence not a "spontaneous eruption of emotion" open on evidence - Head sentence of 14 years' imprisonment and non-parole period of 11 years' imprisonment not manifestly excessive - Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Chernov, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this appeal.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

The appellant, Matthew Charles Rendle, who is now aged 41, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Melbourne to murdering Craig William Bohn (“the deceased”) on 26 February 2002. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. On 27 April 2004, following a plea in mitigation made on the appellant’s behalf, the learned sentencing judge imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and directed that the appellant serve a minimum term of 11 years’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. The appellant does not have any relevant prior convictions. On 22 October 2004 he was granted leave to appeal against his sentence by a single judge of this Court. The sole ground listed in his notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was filed on 11 May 2004, is that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive. On 9 February 2005, the Registrar of this Court granted the appellant leave to add two further grounds of appeal, namely, first, that the learned sentencing judge erred by failing properly to take into account the evidence of the appellant’s medical condition and secondly, that his Honour erred by imposing a non-parole period that is manifestly excessive, particularly when compared to the head sentence.

The circumstances of the offending and those pertaining to the appellant are set out in his Honour’s comprehensive sentencing remarks and I will not repeat them here. It is sufficient to note that the murder, which was committed at night whilst the victim was in his own home, was a violent and grossly exaggerated response by the appellant to a perceived slight against him by the deceased, who had stolen from him, the day before, a pair of electronic scales when he visited the appellant at his home. The appellant entered the victim’s home armed with a knife with a large blade and demanded the return of his property. He cut the deceased across the face when he attempted to stand from a sitting position on his bed before continuing to demand that the deceased return the scales. When the deceased admitted to taking them but…

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 Rendle

Details

AGLC: R v Rendle [2005] VSCA 52
Case: [2005] VSCA 52
Decision Date: 24 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Rendle, the appellant stood convicted of the murder of his wife and was sentenced to a head sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, with an 11-year non-parole period. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant contended that his intellectual impairment had not been adequately considered by the sentencing judge, and that the head sentence was manifestly excessive. The central legal issues were whether the sentencing judge had properly evaluated the appellant's intellectual impairment and if the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the appellant's intellectual impairment, noting that while such impairment was a mitigating factor, it did not absolve the gravity of the offence. The Court also held that the finding that the murder was not a spontaneous eruption of emotion was open on the evidence presented. The sentencing judge had balanced the mitigating factors against the seriousness of the crime, leading to the imposition of the sentence. The Court further concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offence committed.

Given the above, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The Court did not find any error in the judge's assessment of the appellant's intellectual impairment or in the determination that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court's decision affirmed the sentence handed down by the lower court.

Orders