JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 August 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tedford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 476

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Prolonged attack – Victim sustained multiple blunt force injuries and stab wounds – Violence against former intimate partner – Offending occurred in context of relationship breakdown – Serious example of offence of attempted murder – Conduct endangering persons – Deliberately driving in front of train – Mid-range example of offence of conduct endangering persons – Guilty plea – Degree of premeditation – No relevant criminal history – General deterrence and denunciation – Totality – Age and ill health – Total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J McWilliams	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Bayles	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Albert Winston Tedford, on 29 May 2018, you pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of your wife, Bridie Tedford, on 16 October 2017. You also pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly engaging in conduct that placed persons in danger of serious injury later that same evening.

The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for recklessly engaging in conduct placing persons in danger of serious injury is 5 years imprisonment.

Circumstances of the offending

At the time of your offending, your wife was 62 years of age and you were aged 76. You have known your wife since she was 24 years old. You had been in a close relationship for 25 years and married for eight years by the time of your offending. At times, the relationship had been acrimonious and difficult. These difficulties intensified in the approximate 12 months leading up to your offending. In January 2017, you separated and your wife moved from the main house, where you both lived in Reservoir, into a bungalow at the back.

On 16 October 2017, your wife suffered a minor injury when she fell in the shower at the Reservoir Leisure Centre. After she received medical treatment, you were both at home and sat on the veranda of the house and talked. You drank some alcohol, and your wife became concerned as you often become argumentative when you drink. On this occasion she observed that you remained unusually calm as you sat and talked. However, the conversation deteriorated and you became a little irrational. At one point, your wife suggested you might need to see a psychologist and that your separation was having a significant impact on you. You also discussed whether the house that you jointly owned should be sold. At about 6.00pm, Mrs Tedford went back to the bungalow at the rear of the property.

Between 6.15pm 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 Tedford

Details

AGLC: R v Tedford [2018] VSC 476
Case: [2018] VSC 476
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the respondent against a sentence imposed for charges of attempted murder and conduct endangering persons. The respondent, Tedford, had been convicted of attempting to murder his former intimate partner and recklessly endangering the lives of persons on a train. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, the degree of premeditation, and the consideration of the totality principle in sentencing.

The court addressed the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. It considered the prolonged and violent nature of the attack on the victim, which resulted in multiple injuries, and the context of the relationship breakdown. The court found the attempted murder to be a serious example of the offence, warranting a significant sentence. In relation to the endangering persons offence, the court regarded it as a mid-range example due to Tedford deliberately driving in front of a train, but mitigated by the absence of any relevant criminal history. The court also took into account Tedford's guilty plea, degree of premeditation, and personal circumstances, including his age and ill health.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court balanced these factors and concluded that a total effective sentence of 9 years' imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 6 years. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the personal circumstances of Tedford. The court held that the sentence was just and appropriate under the totality principle.

The court did not alter the sentence, affirming the decision of the lower court. Tedford's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders