Adrian Bayley has lost his appeal to have his 35-year non-parole period reduced for the murder of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher.
In a full bench hearing headed by Victoria’s chief justice, Marilyn Warren, the court of appeal rejected Bayley’s bid to have his non-parole sentence reduced to between 28 and 32 years.
Bayley, who was not present for the decision, raped and murdered Meagher, a staff member of broadcaster ABC, a little over a year ago after dragging her down an alley off Sydney Road, in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick.
It emerged in an early court hearing that Bayley was on parole at the time and had been found guilty of more than 20 rapes over 23 years before Meagher’s death. The case provoked a review of Victoria’s parole system, with the state government introducing tough restrictions on violent offenders on parole.
At the appeal hearing this morning, Saul Holt, Bayley’s counsel, argued that the 35-year non-parole period imposed by the sentencing judge, Geoffrey Nettle, was “disproportionate” as it was comparable to terms handed down for people who committed multiple murders during Melbourne’s gangland war, as well as for other murderers who had derived “sadistic pleasure” from killing.
“The essence of our argument is that community protection is met by the life sentence,” he said.
“Once you get to a certain point in a long sentence, imposing a long non-parole period on top of that is doing little more than speculating about the future protection of the community.
“We can’t rationally say that 35 years will render a person safe. That’s essentially why the system of parole exists.”
Mr Holt said the defence team accepted that Mr Holt had an “awful history of horrific, sexual violence” but that his sentence had been unduly influenced by a theory put forward by Nettle that Bayley gained pleasure from Meagher’s death.
“That finding is of such seriousness, such gravity, it must have impacted on the non-parole period imposed,” he said. “None of this mitigates the crime, but there is a significant difference in the moral culpability of taking pleasure in violence and taking pleasure in the taking of someone’s life.
“The report by Dr [psychologist James] Ogloff is inconsistent with the idea that the applicant took pleasure in the taking of life.”
Responding to Bayley’s appeal, Gavin Silbert QC, Victoria’s chief prosecutor, said the application was “splitting hairs” and pointed out that Bayley would have received no parole at all if he had not initially pleaded guilty.
“This submission simply doesn’t stand on common sense,” he said. “If the court is to take the protection of the community into account for the head sentence, ipso facto it would have to do it for the non-parole sentence.
“The crown’s response to this application is really, ‘So what?’ “
Judge Warren said the three presiding judges would release reasons for their decision to reject Bayley’s appeal in due course.
Guardian