Legal Research
Cases
Tedford v The Queen

Tedford v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 71 26 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0272

ALBERT TEDFORD	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, BEACH and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 71
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Tedford [2018] VSC 476 (Champion J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Attempted murder – Reckless conduct endangering persons of serious injury – Pre-committal pleas of guilty – Total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years – Whether individual sentence on reckless conduct charge and order for cumulation manifestly excessive – Applicant 77 years old at time of pleas – Poor health of applicant – Prior good character – Serious example of offending – General deterrence – Individual sentence on reckless conduct charge within range – Order for cumulation not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C A Boston with Ms S Joosten	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr N Hutton	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA
T FORREST JA:

On 24 August 2018, the applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on one charge of attempted murder (charge 1). He was also sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment on one charge of reckless conduct endangering persons of serious injury (charge 2). One year of the sentence imposed on charge 2 was made cumulative on charge 1. Thus the total effective sentence was nine years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period was set at six years.

In this application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant contends that the sentence imposed on charge 2 is manifestly excessive. The proposed ground is expressed as follows:

The individual sentence on Charge 2, order for cumulation, total effective sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive, having regard to the five-year maximum penalty for the offence, the fact that it was committed in the context of a suicide attempt, and the significant factors in mitigation, including the applicant’s early pleas of guilty, advanced age and ill health, and prior good character.

Background

We shall set out the background to the offending.

The applicant and his wife, Bridie Tedford, had conducted a relationship for 25 years. They had been married for eight years at the time of offending. In January 2017, the couple separated and Ms Tedford moved from the family house in Coburg to a bungalow at the back of the property. In October 2017, the applicant was aged 76 and Ms Tedford was 62.

On 16 October 2017, the applicant and Ms Tedford sat on the verandah of the applicant’s house. They consumed alcohol for a time. The applicant became argumentative. Ms Tedford suggested that he see a psychologist. At around 6.00 pm, Ms Tedford returned to her bungalow. The applicant telephoned his friend, BP, told him that he felt depressed, and said that he needed his…

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 Tedford v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Albert Tedford v The Queen [2020] VSCA 71
Case: [2020] VSCA 71
Decision Date: 26 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tedford, was convicted of attempted murder and reckless conduct endangering persons of serious injury. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the severity of the sentence handed down in the lower courts. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the individual sentence for the reckless conduct charge and the order for cumulation were manifestly excessive. Tedford argued that at the time of his pleas, he was 77 years old, in poor health, and of good prior character. The Crown argued that the offences were serious and warranted a strong deterrent sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed. It held that the individual sentence for the reckless conduct charge was within the appropriate range, and the order for cumulation was not manifestly excessive. The court took into account Tedford's age, health, and good character but also emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

As a result of the court's decision, Tedford's appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The High Court upheld the original sentence, finding that it was appropriate and not manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances of the case. The court's decision reinforces the importance of considering both the nature of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders