JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 & 9 November 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 March 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robertson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 145

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Standard sentence offence – Blunt force injuries to face and head – Dumbbell bar – Multiple and deliberate blows – Catastrophic injuries – Uncontrollable rage – Intention to kill – Intimate partner – Daughter in next room – Context of relationship breakdown – Accused became possessive and controlling – Grave example of offence of murder – Above middle range of seriousness – High level of culpability – Grossly violent – Plea of guilty early – Admissions – Remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Denunciation – General deterrence – Just punishment – Sentence of twenty four years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of nineteen years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of twenty nine years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of twenty four years – R v Davey [2006] VSC 173, Muldrockv R (2011) 244 CLR 120, Felicite v R (2011) 37 VR 329, R v Brown [2018] VSC 742 – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) – Sentencing Amendment (Sentencing Standards) Act 2017 (Vic) – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Churchill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Kassimatis QC with Mr C K Wareham	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Shane Michael Robertson, on 6 July 2018, you pleaded guilty to the murder of Katherine Haley.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. It is a category one offence and a standard sentence offence.

Background

At the time of her death, Katherine Haley was 29 years old. After leaving school, Ms Haley became a qualified hairdresser and worked in the industry until 2017.

In 2011, she had her first child with her then partner. You met Ms Haley around that time, although you were engaged to another partner. In 2014, you commenced a relationship with Ms Haley, which lasted approximately four years until her death.

The early period of your relationship appears to have been happy and loving. After Ms Haley fell pregnant in August 2016, the two of you moved into a three bedroom home in Diggers Rest, and your daughter was born in April 2017.

After the birth of your daughter, your relationship became strained. Around mid-2017, Ms Haley began employment in a tavern in Gisborne. She enjoyed the change of employment, and you were both able to work and care for the children.

However, you began to resent Ms Haley working at the tavern and being around other men. You became increasingly jealous as she made new friends, and were concerned that she was being unfaithful. You began questioning her activities, and frequently…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [2019] VSC 145
Case: [2019] VSC 145
Decision Date: 6 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robertson, the respondent was charged with the murder of his former partner, in which he inflicted fatal injuries using a dumbbell bar. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.

The central legal issue was determining the appropriate level of punishment for the respondent, given the circumstances of the crime and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to assess the severity of the offence, taking into account the brutality of the attack, the respondent's intention to kill, and the context of the relationship breakdown. Additionally, the court had to weigh the mitigating factors, such as the respondent's early guilty plea, admissions, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court found that the murder was a grave example of the offence, with the respondent delivering multiple and deliberate blows with a dumbbell bar, causing catastrophic injuries. The court considered the respondent's loss of control and the context of the relationship breakdown, which had led to possessive and controlling behaviour. Despite these factors, the court determined that the case was above the middle range of seriousness due to the high level of culpability and the grossly violent nature of the crime. The court also took into account the mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, admissions, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of twenty-four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nineteen years was appropriate, but noted that but for the early guilty plea, the sentence would have been twenty-nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty-four years.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to twenty-four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nineteen years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing, while also considering the need for just punishment and the prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders