R v Sharpe - [2005] VSC 276

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1469 of 2004

THE QUEEN

JOHN MYLES SHARPE

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 April, 20 May, 6 June 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 August 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sharpe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 276

---

Criminal Law – sentencing – murder - premeditation – prolonged concealment – lies – no actual remorse – protection of the community – rehabilitation – life imprisonment – long minimum term – 33 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Rapke, SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J Dixon	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

John Myles Sharpe, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of murder. It is now the duty of this Court to sentence you according to law.

The purpose of these sentencing remarks is essentially twofold. Their first purpose is so that you will fully understand the reasons for the sentence the Court is about to impose upon you. Their second purpose is so that the community which you have grievously injured and in whose name you will be imprisoned may be informed of the full extent of your offending and of the details of the sentence imposed upon you according to the law of this State. As your plea of guilty has obviated the necessity for a trial, it is important that the details of these crimes be placed on the public record even though, as your counsel has properly conceded, they are perhaps, for many, too awful to contemplate.

You were born on 28 February 1967 in Mornington and grew up in that area. When you were 27, you met Anna Marie Kemp, a New Zealander, who was then aged about 31. You both worked at the Commonwealth Bank. You married Anna Kemp in October 1994 and between then and the time of the dreadful events which have brought you before this Court you lived with her at various addresses in the Mornington Peninsula area.

In August 2002 a baby girl, Gracie Louise Sharpe, was born. Unfortunately, shortly after her birth, she was found to be suffering from a congenital abnormality in her hips which required orthopaedic treatment by way of a corrective harness for the first three months of her life. Although it was expected that she would experience no long term problems associated with her abnormality, she was, in her first few months at least, somewhat unsettled. She cried often and had difficulty sleeping, which situation appeared to place some strain on your relationship with your wife. Even after Gracie’s orthopaedic harness was no longer required she still had difficulties in feeding and sleeping for which Anna sought professional assistance. In November 2002, she attended Hillview Maternity Unit of Peninsula Health complaining of being unable to cope and of feeling anxious. Subsequently she had three in-patient admissions for respite with Gracie to try to establish regular sleeping…

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 Sharpe

Details

AGLC: R v Sharpe [2005] VSC 276
Case: [2005] VSC 276
Decision Date: 5 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharpe involved the defendant, Sharpe, who was convicted of murder. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had committed a premeditated murder, concealed the body for an extended period, and showed no genuine remorse. The prosecution argued for a lengthy sentence to ensure protection of the community and to reflect the severity of the crime.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to give to the various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the possibility of rehabilitation. It also had to consider the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment to protect the community.

The court found that the murder was particularly heinous due to the premeditation, prolonged concealment of the body, and the defendant's lack of remorse. While acknowledging the possibility of rehabilitation, the court emphasised the need to protect the community and deter similar crimes. After weighing all factors, the court determined that a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 33 years was appropriate. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and aimed to balance punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders