R v Vojneski (No 4) - [2014] ACTSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Vojneski (No 4)
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 307
Hearing Dates:	28 July 2014 – 3 September 2014, 30 October 2014
DecisionDate:	11 November 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The offender is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences against the person – murder – criminal liability and capacity – impact of mental illness on sentence – judgment and punishment – sentence – life imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33
Cases Cited:	R v Kocan [1966] 2 NSWR 565
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Aleksander Vojneski (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr Drumgold with Mr Hiscox (Crown) Mr Pappas (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 27 of 2013

Burns J:

Background

Aleksander Vojneski, on 3 September this year a jury found you guilty of the murder of Paula Conlon on 27 March 2012. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It now falls to me to impose sentence.

While the jury found you guilty, it is my responsibility to set out the facts as I am satisfied they occurred. Any fact that has the effect of aggravating the seriousness of the offence must be found to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, any fact that has the effect of mitigating the offence need only be established on the balance of probabilities.

Paula Conlon was 30 years old on 27 March 2012. She lived in a three‑bedroom house at Hollows Circuit, Macgregor. She was born in England, where she met her husband, Scott Conlon, in 2001. Scott Conlon was Australian, but was in England playing soccer at that time. When they met, Paula Conlon already had a young child, Olivia, from an earlier relationship. In March 2003, Paula and Scott Conlon returned to Australia to live. In September 2005, their daughter, Grace, was born, followed by another daughter, Holly, in May 2008. In late 2010, Paula and Scott Conlon separated, although they continued to reside under the same roof. In April 2011 they moved out the family home in Higgins and Paula Conlon moved to a house at Hollows Circuit, Macgregor. They continued to have shared custody and responsibility for the children.

It appears that after the birth of Holly, Paula Conlon's mental health declined. By 2010 she was regularly using antidepressants. After the separation, she became lonelier and emotionally fragile. Unfortunately, she abused alcohol while she was taking her prescription antidepressants. On 2 October 2011, she took an overdose of her prescription medication and was admitted to Calvary Hospital, where she met you. At that time, you were an inpatient in the psychiatric ward. Some time shortly thereafter the two of you began a relationship which became a sexual relationship.

After the events of 2 October 2011 and her hospitalisation, Paula Conlon had less day‑to‑day responsibility…

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 Vojneski (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Vojneski (No 4) [2014] ACTSC 307
Case: [2014] ACTSC 307
Decision Date: 11 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Vojneski, was convicted of the murder of his former partner. The case came before the court on appeal against the sentence imposed. The appellant contended that his mental illness should have been taken into account when sentencing him for the murder. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and considered the legal issues pertaining to the impact of mental illness on sentencing in murder cases.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental illness when imposing sentence and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the principles of sentencing in murder cases, the role of mental illness in the sentencing process, and the appropriate weight to be given to mental illness in determining the sentence. The court also considered the need to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to have regard to the individual circumstances of the offender.
The court found that the trial judge had not given adequate consideration to the appellant's mental illness when imposing sentence. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and quashed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court considered the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, taking into account the appellant's mental illness, and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offender when imposing sentence in murder cases and the need to balance the competing considerations of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The court ordered that the appellant be convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court held that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, taking into account the appellant's mental illness and the need to balance the competing considerations of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offender when imposing sentence in murder cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.