R v Robinson - [2010] VSC 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1404 of 2009

THE QUEEN

LEIGH ROBINSON

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14-18, 21-25, 28-29 September and 17 December 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 January 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robinson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 10

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Prior conviction for murder – Sentence of life imprisonment – No non-parole period fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC and Ms D Piekusis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Leigh Robinson, on 29 September 2009 a jury found you guilty of the murder of Tracey Greenbury.

On 17 December 2009 I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The circumstances of this offence were as follows.[1]
[1]I am bound to sentence the offender on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to matters adverse to the offender, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in the offender’s favour which are established on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].

At around 9.00 am on 28 April 2008 you drove your car to Ms Greenbury’s residence in a suburban street in Frankston. You and Ms Greenbury had been in a relationship for about three months. The relationship between the two of you had deteriorated markedly following an incident which occurred approximately ten days prior to 28 April 2009. That incident had resulted in Ms Greenbury becoming seriously frightened of you. It had involved a shortened single barrel shotgun which you owned, which you maintain you routinely carried with you for your own protection, and which was, on 28 April 2008, the murder weapon.

On the morning of 28 April 2008 you and Ms Greenbury conversed for a short period outside her house. You were in your car and she was talking to you from outside your car. An argument developed. You gave evidence during your trial regarding the substance of this argument. You said that it concerned a request that she had made of you to threaten her ex-partner. For present purposes it does not matter what the argument was about.

The shortened shotgun was in your car. During the course of the argument something happened which caused Ms Greenbury to run away from your car and away from you. You got out of the car and chased her. You took the shortened shotgun with you. Ms Greenbury ran to the residence of Ms Leoni Coates, a neighbour whose house was a short way down the street. You chased her. You and Ms…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2010] VSC 10
Case: [2010] VSC 10
Decision Date: 29 January 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robinson involved the respondent, who had been convicted of murder. This appeal pertained to the sentencing phase of the trial. The respondent had a previous conviction for murder, which had resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment without a non-parole period being set. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate given the respondent's history of violent criminal behaviour and the need to balance retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the sentence met the objectives of the criminal justice system, including the protection of society and the fair treatment of the offender.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder, particularly in cases where the offender has a prior conviction for the same crime. It was necessary to weigh the severity of the current offence against the respondent's criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact of the previous sentence, which had not included a non-parole period, and the implications of this for the respondent's prospects of release. The legal framework guiding the court's decision included relevant statutes and judicial precedents that address the sentencing of repeat offenders and the specific considerations that apply to homicide cases.

In delivering its judgment, the court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately address the respondent's history of violent criminal conduct or sufficiently protect the community. The court found that the absence of a non-parole period in the previous sentence had not acted as an effective deterrent. As a result, the court deemed it necessary to impose a new sentence that included a non-parole period to ensure that the respondent would remain incarcerated for a significant period, thereby achieving the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and public protection. The court set a non-parole period of twenty-five years, reflecting the gravity of the current offence and the respondent's prior conviction.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent serve a life sentence for the murder conviction, with a non-parole period of twenty-five years. This decision underscored the importance of considering both the nature of the offence and the offender's criminal history in determining an appropriate sentence. The imposition of a non-parole period was seen as essential to uphold the principles of justice and to protect society from the risk posed by the respondent.

Orders