Charles FRANCIS AM RFD QC interview 4/11/2003

In 1972, you acted for a Brunswick man, Edward Quincey who murdered his wife. It was a bit of a crime passionel wasn’t it?

Yes.

And Paul Willee QC was your junior in this matter.

Yes he was.

That was a rather sad story though; that was a case of a man executing his wife over what he believed was her infidelity.

Well, there was no doubt about her infidelity. It was a very sad case and when I first went out to see Eddy Quinsee, he said to me, “I killed my wife, in no circumstances will I plead not guilty and I want to be hung”.

That was his attitude at first, but I went out there many times and it seemed to me that the appropriate verdict would be manslaughter having regard to the provocation, which his wife gave him when she told him about her infidelity and when she indicated that infidelity would continue and not necessarily with the same man. It was at that stage that he shot her through the head from a short distance.

In the end, I persuaded him to plead not guilty. We simply presented the truth as we saw it and the jury found him guilty of manslaughter and he got a relatively short sentence and came out. By the end of the trial, his attitude had changed and he no longer wanted to be hung. I think we’d given him hope.

The judge certainly agreed with your diagnosis.

Yes, he did. But that was an unusual situation, because you had a man who began determined to plead guilty and wanted to be hung, but the more I learned about it, the more it was a very tragic case.

He was probably suffering a huge amount of remorse. He probably loved his wife.

I have no doubt he loved his wife. And I think that was partly the reason why he shot her; his grief was so great at what was happening.

Do you think that decision would stand up today?

It should stand up very much the same if the jury was satisfied that he’d had that sort of provocation. Actually, that was one of the first cases of its type. Prior to that, in general a husband would be convicted of murder unless he actually caught his wife in the act of adultery and killed her (in the act of adultery).

This case was different, in that he knew of her adultery, he drove up from Melbourne to Bendigo with a pistol, (he said) not necessarily intending to kill her, but when she made the provocative remarks indicating that her adultery would continue, he lost control of himself and shot her through the head at a short distance. But it was apparent to me that he still loved his wife and bitterly regretted what had happened.

Did the other side tried to portray him as a cold hearted killer?

No they didn’t. I think the prosecution was fair.

Conducted for the Bar Oral History project by Juliette Brodsky in the Neil McPhee Room, Owen Dixon Chambers and filmed by Stewart Carter (People Pictures)