Murder Trial in the Supreme Court – Subsequent Plea
Murder trial in the Supreme Court – Subsequent Plea
Our client was accused of murdering her daughter in law. After being found guilty of murder by a jury, she was subsequently sentenced.
Maximum Sentencing for the charge of murder
What our client received
18 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months; a further 831 days was deducted from the total sentence as time served before trial.
Our client moved to Melbourne in 2010 to be with her family and to assist the deceased in the day to day household duties, including looking after her grandchild.
Our client’s relationship with the deceased deteriorated shortly after the birth of her grandson, largely due to cultural differences between our client and the deceased. The strained relationship also led to physical altercations with the deceased prior to the murder.
Our client struck the deceased with a hammer over 30 times. The pathologist, who conducted the post-mortem, concluded that the cause of death was blunt force injuries to the head. Our client then wrapped the body of the deceased up, placed it in a wheelie bin and proceeded to dump the body in a nearby creek.
The lenient sentence took into account that our client:
- Did not premeditate the murder, but rather was a result of an outburst of uncontrollable anger, which arose from the difficult relationship between our client and deceased
- Cooperated with the police in that our client assisted the police in locating the deceased’s body
- Has no prior criminal records and no history of violence
- Is unlikely to re-offend
- Have good prospects of rehabilitation
- After serving her sentence, there is a real possibility that our client would be deported out of Australia back to her home country
- Will endure hardship in prison due to her lack of language skills
Why this was a favourable outcome
Our client received a very lenient sentence which took into account all of her mitigatory circumstances. She avoided the possibility of serving life in prison.
This sentence was even more favourable to the client, given that she was found guilty by a jury, as opposed to pleading guilty.
If you have any queries on murder trials, please contact us to get help.
Disclaimer: Please be aware that the above piece is NOT intended to be definitive legal advice. If you have enquiries relating to the above subject matter, please contact us for an obligation free, face to face consultation.
EXCLUSIVE PAUL VALE CRIMINAL LAW SERVICES
We offer Victoria’s only reliable 24 hours legal service. Call (03) 9870 1959
Legal service available in Chinese (Mandarin).