R v Wales - [2003] VSC 115

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1522 of 2002
1521 of 2002

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW ROBERT WALES AND MARITZA ELIZABETH WALES

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	18 AND 19 DECEMBER 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 APRIL 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v WALES
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 115

---

Sentence – Murder – Offender killed his mother and stepfather – Offences premeditated but without any post killing plan – Obsession with perceived injustices perpetrated by mother – Relatively low intelligence of offender relevant – Belief that killing justified – No remorse – Pleas of guilty – Prior unblemished character – Need for general deterrence – Imprisonment for 20 years on each count – Total effective sentence after cumulation 30 years – Non-parole period of 24 years.

Sentence – Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Offender wife of murderer – False statement made to police at behest of husband – Offender subsequently informed police of crimes – Plea of guilty – Prior unblemished character – Offender primary carer of 3 year old child – Evident remorse – General deterrence relevant – Imprisonment for 2 years warranted but wholly suspended in unique circumstances.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W. Morgan-Payler QC with Ms G. Cannon	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Matthew Wales	Mr M. Tovey QC with Mr P. Morrissey	Clarebrough Pica
For the Accused Maritza Wales	Mr P. Dunn QC with Ms K. Rowe	Galbally & O'Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Matthew Robert Wales, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your mother, Margaret Mary Wales-King and your step-father, Paul Aloysius King, at Glen Iris on 4 April 2002.

Maritza Elizabeth Wales, you have pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of public justice, by making a false statement to police at Armadale on 9 April 2002 about your knowledge of events surrounding the disappearance and murder of Mrs Margaret Wales-King and Mr Paul King.

In order to sentence each of you it is necessary to have regard to the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences. This case has received an enormous amount of publicity and has been accompanied by a degree of rumour, speculation and innuendo.

It is important, therefore, to set out those facts and circumstances in greater than normal detail.

In doing so, the Court is reliant, to a considerable extent upon the version of events you both gave to investigating police in video-taped interviews made on 11 May 2002. Although at times, these are disjointed and on occasions, differ in the detail or sequence of events, a broadly similar version of the circumstances leading up to and following these killings emerges.

Most of the material is consistent with the forensic and independent evidence.

Matthew Wales, on 4 April 2002, at about 7 p.m., your mother and step-father arrived at your rented home at Unit 1, 152 Burke Road, Glen Iris. They…

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 Wales

Details

AGLC: R v Wales [2003] VSC 115
Case: [2003] VSC 115
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wales, the appellant, who had killed his mother and stepfather, faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, the wife of the appellant, had assisted in perverting the course of justice by providing false information to the police. Both parties entered guilty pleas and had unblemished prior criminal records. The appellant had acted out of an obsession with perceived injustices and believed that the killings were justified. The respondent, who was the primary carer of a three-year-old child, showed remorse and cooperated with the police.

The court was required to balance various factors in determining the appropriate sentences. For the appellant, the court considered the premeditation of the crimes, the lack of remorse, and the need for general deterrence. The relatively low intelligence of the offender was also taken into account. For the respondent, the court considered her role as the primary carer for a young child, her remorse, and the fact that she had cooperated with the police after initially providing false information.

The court sentenced the appellant to 20 years imprisonment on each count, with a total effective sentence of 30 years after cumulation. The non-parole period was set at 24 years. The court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment on the respondent for attempting to pervert the course of justice, but wholly suspended the sentence due to the unique circumstances. The court took into account the respondent's remorse, her role as a primary carer, and the need for general deterrence.

The court ordered that the appellant serve a total effective sentence of 30 years, with a non-parole period of 24 years. The sentence for the respondent was wholly suspended.

Orders