R v Wilson - [2011] VSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0095 of 2011

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL WILSON

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25 March 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Wilson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 123

---

Murder – plea of not guilty - plea of guilty to manslaughter – rejected by Crown
Murder verdict by jury - 50 year old male - no discernable motive

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Beale	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes	Robert Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Michael Wilson, on 21 March 2011, you were convicted by a jury of the murder of Carol Neeve on the 29 June 2009. The trial was of short duration and you had pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of manslaughter in the presence of the jury. The Crown rejected that plea and the trial proceeded on one issue only, the issue of your intent, you having admitted that (a) you killed Carol Neeve – (b) that your actions were conscious, voluntary and deliberate and (c) that you had no lawful excuse.

The circumstances of the offending are as follows. You and the deceased, Carol Neeve, had been in a personal relationship, you had previously ceased that relationship but had, at a later stage, reconciled. It was described as an argumentative type of relationship but there was no evidence before me or this jury that it was a violent relationship, the description being that you argued a lot over money.

During a period when you and Carol Neeve were no longer together, she had formed a relationship with a man by the name of Alan McKean which had ceased prior to you and she resuming your relationship. It had ended by mutual agreement and they had actually remained good friends with Mr McKean keeping in contact with Ms Neeve.

Carol Neeve lived with her daughter and an old friend by the name of Bill Symons who was a 77 year old pension. Ms Neeve was in fact his registered carer as a result of an operation he had received on his hip some five years earlier. You were living in a caravan near your employment on the Westgate Bridge. You stayed over most weekends, and some nights, at the home of Ms Neeve.

On Sunday 28 June 2009, Carol Neeve, together with Bill Symons, travelled down to Dromana to drop her daughter Melanie at her grandmothers for the school holidays. returning to the premises at about 5.30. Mr Symons went to bed relatively early as a result of his hip being sore and read until about 9 o’clock. He got up about 10.00 to go to the toilet and at no time did he hear you arguing and you were both still sitting watching television when he went back to bed. Mr Symons was…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2011] VSC 123
Case: [2011] VSC 123
Decision Date: 5 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wilson, the accused, a 50-year-old male, faced the court for the murder of an individual with no discernible motive. The accused initially pleaded not guilty, however, after deliberation, he proposed a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The Crown rejected this plea, leading to a trial where the jury returned a verdict of murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the accused's defence of insanity was considered.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the validity of the plea of guilty to manslaughter, the rejection of this plea by the Crown, and the defence of insanity raised by the accused. The court had to determine if the plea of guilty to manslaughter was appropriate and whether the Crown's rejection was justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess the accused's defence of insanity and its implications on the case.

The court concluded that the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter was not an appropriate plea given the circumstances. The Crown's rejection of this plea was deemed justified as the accused's actions showed no remorse, and there was no clear motive for the crime. Furthermore, the court found that the accused's defence of insanity was not supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the jury's verdict of murder was upheld.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the accused for murder, with the judge sentencing him to life imprisonment. The court also ordered that the accused be subject to a psychiatric evaluation to determine his mental state and potential risks to society. The accused's plea of insanity was dismissed, and the court emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need for appropriate punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders