JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 June 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Willis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 398

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – History of family violence – Plea of guilty – Standard sentencing scheme – Legislative guidepost – Realistic connection between mental illness and offence – Verdins principles apply – Discussion of standard sentencing scheme – Sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period 14 years’ imprisonment – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 3, 5A, 5B, 6AAA and 11A – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 3(2)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Ellis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J Munster	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Jamie Ian Willis, on 3 May 2019 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to the murder of your mother, Caroline Willis. The evidence reveals that you murdered her on Thursday 24 May 2018 by stabbing her to death at her home in Werribee.

Once again, this case raises the important community issues and the toxic connection between drugs (particularly methamphetamines), mental health and family violence. The evidence indicates that both you and your mother had significant mental health issues, which severely strained your relationship with her and ultimately led to this tragic and, as always, futile killing.

On Friday 3 May 2019, I heard the prosecution’s summary of your offending; the circumstances of which are not in contention. I also heard submissions from your counsel, Ms Munster, and the prosecutor, Ms Ellis, as to the sentence that I should impose on you.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence for this very serious offence.

Background and circumstances of the offence

At the time of her death, your mother was 70 years of age. She had six children, of whom you are the youngest. The two of you were living in a home you had jointly owned since June 2016 at Taworri Crescent, Werribee.

In the three years preceding her death, your relationship with your mother was mired in conflict. On 30 August 2016, an argument led to a Family Violence Safety Notice, which prevented you from living at home until it was varied in November 2016. That same month, a Family Violence Intervention Order (‘Intervention Order’) granted for the protection of the deceased. That order expired in November 2017. During this period, your mother was concerned about your attitude towards her and had expressed these concerns and her inability to cope to her doctor. There were also occasions when the police were called to attend the home in response to domestic disputes. In May 2018, your mother also disclosed to your father that, while you were doing better overall since taking your medication, she was afraid of you.

On…

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 Willis

Details

AGLC: R v Willis [2019] VSC 398
Case: [2019] VSC 398
Decision Date: 20 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Willis, the appellant was convicted of murdering his partner, a crime to which he had pleaded guilty. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be.

The court examined the principles established by Verdins, focusing on the standard sentencing scheme and the legislative guideposts. It considered the history of family violence, the appellant's plea of guilty, and the realistic connection between his mental illness and the offence. The court found that the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors. The court applied the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) in its determination.

The Supreme Court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, and dismissed the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the standard sentencing scheme and the need to balance the various factors in each case. The decision highlights the court's approach to sentencing in cases of murder, particularly where there is a history of family violence and mental illness. The final orders confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with the non-parole period set at 14 years.

Orders