R v Verdins - [2005] VSC 479

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1516 of 2004

THE QUEEN

MARK ANDREW VERDINS

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 September 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 November 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Verdins
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 479

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence- Murder –Shooting of former girlfriend with home made pen pistol- Two shots fired at close range- Offender attempted suicide by shooting self in mouth- Offender drove at high speed on freeway – Manslaughter of innocent third party by unlawful and dangerous act of driving at high speed on freeway- Victim’s car burst into flames as a result of offender’s vehicle colliding into rear – Victim incinerated – Guilty Pleas - Youth of offender- Effect of offender’s depression – Remorse- Prospects of rehabilitation

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Dunn, Q.C.	Rob Melasecca Barristers & Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Mark Verdins you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Leanne Elliott and the manslaughter of Kevin James Bertram on 17 September 2003.

Ms Elliott had been your girlfriend for a number of years. You murdered her by shooting her twice in the chest, using a home made pen pistol. It is unclear when or where you shot her, but she was found dead in the front seat of your Holden Senator vehicle which had run off the Monash Freeway at Chadstone, in the vicinity of the area between the High Street Overpass and Warrigal Road.

Mr Bertram died as a result of injuries he sustained after your car which was travelling at speeds of between 180 and 200 kilometres per hour had driven into the rear of his vehicle which was travelling at approximately half that speed. Mr Bertram’s vehicle burst into flames after the collision and rolled, before stopping upside down on the median strip. Passing motorists were unable to free Mr Bertram from his burning car and Dr Michael Burke, the forensic pathologist who examined his body, considered that he died whilst being incinerated inside the burning vehicle.

You were charged with murdering both Ms Elliott and Mr Bertram. You pleaded guilty to the charge of murder of Ms Elliott at the earliest opportunity and offered to plead guilty to a charge of culpable driving in relation to Mr Bertram’s death. Eventually, you pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, shortly before your trial was to commence. The unlawful and dangerous act was constituted by your dangerous driving at speeds of between 180 and 200 kilometres per hour shortly before the collision.

The chronology of events is unclear and should be considered in the context of your life generally and your relationship with Ms Elliott.

You were born on 20 May 1980 and so, were 23 years old at the date of your offences. Your parents separated when…

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 Verdins

Details

AGLC: R v Verdins [2005] VSC 479
Case: [2005] VSC 479
Decision Date: 25 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Verdins, the appellant, Verdins, faced the Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to a grievous set of incidents culminating in murder and manslaughter charges. Verdins shot his former girlfriend twice at close range with a homemade pen pistol, after which he attempted suicide by shooting himself in the mouth. Subsequently, in a reckless manner, Verdins drove at high speed on a freeway, resulting in a collision with another vehicle. This collision caused the other vehicle to burst into flames, resulting in the incineration of the driver, an innocent third party. Verdins entered guilty pleas to charges of murder and manslaughter.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentencing for Verdins, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the youth of the offender, his state of depression at the time of the offences, the remorse expressed by Verdins, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the severity of the crimes, which involved the intentional killing of an individual and the manslaughter of an innocent person through an act of dangerous driving.

The court acknowledged the tragic nature of the incidents and the significant mitigating factors presented, including Verdins' youth and his state of depression. The court also considered the remorse expressed by Verdins and his prospects of rehabilitation. However, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences, particularly the element of premeditation and the dangerous nature of the act leading to the manslaughter. Ultimately, the court determined that while the mitigating factors were significant, they could not outweigh the severity of the crimes committed. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered Verdins to serve a term of imprisonment, with specific parole conditions to be determined based on his rehabilitation progress and risk assessment. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of all relevant factors, aiming to balance justice for the victims with the potential for the offender's rehabilitation.

Orders