R v Stone - [2019] VSC 452

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0304

THE QUEEN
v
KATE MARIE STONE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo
DATE OF HEARING:	15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30 October 2018, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 November 2018; 5 July 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 July 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stone
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 452

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Convicted after trial – Deceased doused with enamel thinner and set alight – Deceased was the long-term intimate partner of the accused – Murder occurred in their home – Two of their joint children present in the home at the time – Accused stated that she witnessed a named individual commit the murderous act in company with two others – Accused maintains innocence – No remorse – Denunciation – Deterrence – Just punishment – Sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 28 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Mahady	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Kilduff	Robert Davis

HER HONOUR:

Kate Stone, following a 22-day trial, a jury convicted you of the murder of Darren Reid. On the evening of 18 December 2016, you doused Mr Reid in enamel thinner and set him alight.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Summary of Offending
Background

The motive for your particularly callous crime remains somewhat opaque, but it must find its roots in your relationship with Mr Reid.

You first met him when you were just 13 years of age. He was some five and a half years older than you. You later commenced a relationship and, between 1997 and 2008, that relationship produced five children. The family moved regularly. By 2016, the Bendigo suburb of Long Gully had come to be your home. At the time of his death, Mr Reid resided there with you and the youngest three of your children.

When later interviewed by police you said that you loved Mr Reid. You said that while there was occasional yelling, there was never any violence in your home. But, other evidence led in the trial is to the contrary.

Mr Reid’s mother gave evidence that in November 2016 she received a reverse charge phone call from her son in which he told her that you had chased him down the street with a knife and that he was locked out of the house without his mobile telephone, keys or wallet. He said ‘I’m really scared mum. I’m in fear of my life’. Mr Reid’s stepmother also gave evidence, stating that on the afternoon of the day he died, Mr Reid visited her and said that he was going to leave you. She, together with her daughter, visited your home the evening of the same day. Again Mr Reid said that he was leaving and…

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 Stone

Details

AGLC: R v Stone [2019] VSC 452
Case: [2019] VSC 452
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Stone was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Stone, was convicted of the murder of her long-term partner, who was killed in their home while two of their joint children were present. The deceased was doused with enamel thinner and set alight. Stone was found guilty of murder by the jury following a trial. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and Stone now appeals to the High Court against her sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 28 years.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had been found guilty of murder. The court was required to consider the principles of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the need for just punishment. The respondent maintained her innocence, and there was no evidence of remorse. The court also had to consider the impact of the crime on the two children who were present in the home at the time of the murder.

The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court noted that the respondent had shown no remorse for her actions and had denied any involvement in the crime. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the two children who were present in the home at the time of the murder. The court found that the sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 28 years, was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the need for denunciation and deterrence, as well as the need for just punishment. The court noted that the respondent had shown no remorse for her actions and had denied any involvement in the crime. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the two children who were present in the home at the time of the murder. The sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 28 years, was upheld.

Orders