Kate Stone

Question 1

Name

Answer 1

Kate Marie Stone

Question 2

Parties involved

Answer 2

The Queen V Kate Stone

Question 3

Court

Answer 3

The Victorian supreme court Bendigo

Question 4

Date of murder

Answer 4

18 December 2018

Question 5

victim

Answer 5

45 year old Darren Reid

Question 6

Occurred

Answer 6

• at their home with two of their joint children present
• 16 year old daughter informed police that she saw her father on fire, running to the bathroom
• 11 year old daughter ran across the road screaming that Mr Reid was on fire

Question 7

Connection

Answer 7

Accused was a long term intimate partner of the deceased. They had met when she was 13, and he was around 5 and a half years older.

Question 8

sentence

Answer 8

34 years impressment with non-parole period of 28 years

Question 9

The category of the crime and the court the case heard in.

Answer 9

Murder (28 years), 22 day trial - it is an indictable offence

Question 10

What is the source of law for this offence?

Answer 10

The elements are found in the common law where as punishment is found in section three of the crimes act, which is part of the statue law.

Question 11

The mens rea

Answer 11

The men’s rea was the malic of forethought which in this case is the way she killed him shows intention due to her dousing him in paint thinner and setting him alight. The men’s rea was also claims made by witness saying they heard arguing between the pair. However the motive is opaque, though is assumed to be in the roots of their relationship. As well as the nabours called the ambulance.

Question 12

Actus reus

Answer 12

dousing her husband in the enamel thinner and setting him alight

Question 13

5 elements of your offence

Answer 13

1. the killing was unlawful as it was not self defence, nor did it occur in the line of duty.
2. The victim was Mr Reid, who was 45 years old when murdered.
3. Ms Stone was over the age of discursion as she was 41 years old.
4. Ms Stone caused Mr Reids death by dousing him in paint thinner and then setting him alight, which then lead to him dying in hospital the following day. Examinations later established that the cause of death to be “the effects of the fire - extensive severe burns”, she contributed significantly to his death as if it where not for her actions he would not be dead.
5. The accused was of sound mind as Ms Stone was charged for murder as well as no evidence supporting she was not of sound mind.
   The men’s rea was the malic of forethought which in this case is the way she killed him shows intention due to her dousing him in paint thinner and setting him alight. The men’s rea was also claims made by witness saying they heard arguing between the pair. However the motive is opaque, though is assumed to be in the roots of their relationship. Therefore Stone contributed significantly to Mr Reid’s death as without her actions he would not have died. She also didn’t call the ambulance and therefore had intent to kill or course harm

Question 14

The plea of the accused

Answer 14

The accused pleaded innocence and blamed 3 other men, who where found innocent after the arrest. She pleaded not guilty

Question 15

Was there a jury in your chosen case?

Answer 15

Yes as she plead not guilty therefore she had a trial by jury

Question 16

Any defence used by the accused.

Answer 16

She claimed the death was caused by three other men who the family had had pervious problems with. It was later discover that they all where innocent.

Question 17

Were there any appeals in your case?

Answer 17

Stone tried to appeal against the sentence and conviction however the Victorian court of appeal refused the application.

Question 18

The sanction imposed in your case. Discuss how the sanction achieves the purposes of sentencing. Do you agree/disagree with the sanction imposed?

Answer 18

Kate Stone received 34 years imprisonment with a non petrol period of 28 years. The aim of imprisonment is to protect the community as well as punish the offender. In regards to Stones case, this was achieved as she was taken out of the community and therefore can not commit the offence again. She is also receiving punishment for her actions as her freedom has been taken away. Another aim of imprisonment is to deter the community, and this is achieved as Stone received 34 years imprisonment and therefore deters people from committing the act in fear of receiving the same punishments. However, imprisonment is limited in providing rehabilitation, as 45% of prisoners released recommit crimes and therefore end up back in prison. As well as the environment is not contusive of rehabilitation due to being surrounded by other prisoners.

Question 19

What consideration did the Judge take into account when sentencing and how many purposes were achieved in the judgement.

Answer 19

The judge took into consideration both aggravating and mitigating factors. Some aggravating factors that where taken into consideration included Stone taking someone’s life and doing causing so much pain, the judge took into consideration fact she lied and brought three innocent men into a murder investigation. Also the fact she committed the crime when her children where home. As well as her lack of response to the situating (didn’t call the ambulance) and showed no remorse for the situation. Some mitigating factors in this case included her not having any prior convictions.

Question 20

Has there been any law reform as a result of the outcome of your case.

Answer 20

no

Question 21

summary of facts

Answer 21

• Stone’s own DNA on the paint thinner container
• She pleaded not guilty to murder
• Dousing her partner in paint thinner and setting him on fire
• Lied saying 3 intruders killed her partner
• Mr Reid was doused in enamel thinner and set alight
• Mr Reid sustained burns to 95% of his body, including his air ways.
  -Mr Reid was planning on leaving Ms Stone as he had made arrangement to stay at his stepmothers house. However it was unclear whether he communicated that intention with Stone.
• On the 18th of December 2016 they heard yelling and constant physical fighting. Other people passing the house that evening also reported hearing a very loud argument