Director of Public Prosecutions v Lo Bianco
[2024] VSC 681
•7 November 2024
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2023 0068
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Crown |
| v | |
| JOE LO BIANCO | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Fox J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 4 September 2024 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 November 2024 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Lo Bianco |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VSC 681 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Guilty plea following sentence indication hearing — Deceased was offender’s wife — No premeditation or planning — Unexplained and brutal offending — Deceased killed in her own home — Aggravating circumstances —Offender allowed the couple’s 11‑year‑old daughter to find her mother’s body — No prior convictions — No history of family violence — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Standard sentence offence — Sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms N Rogers SC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M O’Brien with Ms Z Broughton | Pica Criminal Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
Joe Lo Bianco, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife, Kaliopi Roumeliotis. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. On 30 November 2022, you brutally killed your wife in the garage of the home you shared.
I will say two things at the outset. First, the impact on the victims in this matter has been profound. I will come to that impact in more detail, but I wish to make clear that sentencing is not about placing a value on Ms Roumeliotis’ life. No court could ever do that. Her life was priceless and she is desperately missed by everyone who loved her. In sentencing, I must balance a number of factors, only one of which is the impact on the victims. Secondly, the plea followed a sentence indication hearing. The sentence I indicated at that hearing will be the sentence imposed today.
Background and offending
You and Ms Roumeliotis met and formed a relationship in 1995. You were in your mid‑20s at the time, having both been born in 1970. You were married in 2006 and your only child, Sally,[1] was born in 2011. There were no signs of problems or disharmony in your marriage, and Sally was a longed for and cherished child.
[1]A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the child.
Ms Roumeliotis was very close to her parents and her only sibling, Arthur. In 2000, her parents had subdivided their large block and built two townhouses, one for her and one for her brother. The siblings lived next door to each other, going on to marry and raise their separate families, while their parents remained in the original house. The three properties were interconnected via unlocked gates. You were welcomed in and became part of this family network.
Ms Roumeliotis was also close to her friends. Over the years, you met her good friends and frequently attended her work events and other social occasions. While she was considered by those who knew her to be a private person, she had many close friends and there was nothing to suggest that you presented any type of risk to her.
At the time of her death, Ms Roumeliotis was working as a senior scientist in pathology at a Melbourne hospital. The commencement of the Covid‑19 pandemic seems to have marked a negative turning point in your marriage. You disagreed about various aspects of Covid‑19 and the vaccine, and it is believed this led to tension and arguments. You refused to be vaccinated and, as a result, could not continue with your employment at Australia Post. This caused financial stress and conflict. The arguments were verbal. There is no known history of physical violence or family violence, and you have no prior convictions.
In early August 2022, Sally told a teacher that her parents were having really bad arguments at home. Sally said it was because her father had not been working lately and he was always arguing with her mother. In the week or two before Ms Roumeliotis was killed, Sally told a friend that her parents were thinking of getting a divorce. Sally later told police that when the verbal arguments between her parents were at their worst, the level of intensity was ‘7 or 8 out of 10’.
In the month prior to November 2022, friends observed both of you to be subdued. Her sister‑in‑law, Louise, felt there was not much love in the marriage, and that there was mutual frustration between you. The day before her death, Ms Roumeliotis met a friend for a massage treatment. She told her friend that she was frustrated with you, and her friend felt that she had reached ‘saturation point’.
On the morning of 30 November, Sally woke to an argument between you and her mother, which she later described as being ‘4 or 5 out of 10’ in its level of intensity. The argument was about finances and the fact you were not bringing in enough money. At this point, you were doing some home maintenance work. You told her you would try and finish the job you were working on.
You drove Sally to school and Ms Roumeliotis went to work. A work colleague said she appeared a little weary. Around 5:45pm, you called her, after which she told her colleague that you had wanted her home at 5:00pm. She left work shortly after you called.
During the day of 30 November, you came and went from home. You spent around three and a half hours gambling at a nearby hotel. Later that afternoon, you assisted a security guard at a shopping plaza to remove an intoxicated male. After police had arrived and assumed control of the situation, you left and called your wife. You then returned home, arriving around 6:15pm. Sally was out at a birthday party and Ms Roumeliotis had not yet returned.
Around one hour later, your wife drove into the garage and remotely closed the garage door behind her. It is unclear whether you were waiting in the garage or entered as soon as you heard her car. What is known is that you attacked Ms Roumeliotis almost immediately and without warning. Based on data obtained from her Apple watch, her heart rate spiked within 60 seconds of her taking two steps. Relying on the same data, it seems the entire assault lasted around two or three minutes.
It was an unprovoked and savage assault. There were injuries suggestive of pressure being applied to her neck. She also had injuries to her hands, wrists and forearms consistent with what are commonly called ‘defensive’ injuries. You struck her multiple times, including using a metal car ramp weighing approximately 7.5 kg. I am satisfied that you inflicted at least three extremely forceful blows, including with the car ramp, to Ms Roumeliotis’ head, face and neck. There was a large amount of blood spatter found on the vehicle and on the wall next to her body. A post‑mortem examination determined that she had died as a result of head and neck injuries.
Your actions immediately afterwards were callous and self‑serving. You placed the car ramp under Ms Roumeliotis’ head in an apparent attempt to stage an accident. You showered and changed, and tried to conceal the clothes you had been wearing in the house and garage. You then walked through to Arthur’s backyard and spoke with Arthur and Louise for around 15 minutes. They asked you about your wife’s birthday and you told them you would probably arrange a barbeque. Louise noticed that you appeared freshly showered and unusually energised. You then went and chatted to your father‑in‑law for about 10 or 15 minutes. You told him you could not get through to your wife’s phone and appeared upset. All this time you knew that Ms Roumeliotis lay dead or dying in the garage.
Sally then arrived home with her friend and his mother. The children saw the garage light was on and began knocking on the garage door. Sally repeatedly pressed the house intercom button and her friend jumped up and down on the letterbox, trying to see through the high garage windows. The friend saw you walking out of the garage through the rear door leading to the laundry, but it was another approximately seven minutes before you answered the door. During this time, Sally’s friend’s mother tried calling you but it went to message bank. After finally opening the front door, you phoned Ms Roumeliotis and left a message saying something like, ‘Hi honey, Sally’s home’. Sally’s friend and his mother then left. Once inside, Sally started asking where her mother was. You said you did not know. Sally said she must be in the garage as her friend had seen the car.
What you did next can only be described as cruel. You asked Sally if she wanted to go and say hi to her mother, which resulted in Sally entering the garage and seeing her mother’s body. It is difficult to understand how you could have done such a thing. You could easily have deflected Sally and told her that her mother was elsewhere. In that moment, you were thinking only of yourself and the false story you were about to tell.
After seeing her mother’s body, a highly distressed Sally ran from the garage and exited the house through the back door. She rushed to her uncle and aunt’s home, and screamed that her mum was bleeding on the face and she thinks she is dying. Meanwhile, you called Triple Zero and told the operator that your wife had tripped in the garage and hit her head.
Arthur and Louise arrived on the scene. Louise commenced CPR on Ms Roumeliotis, while Arthur opened the door and went to flag down the emergency services. You paced around, acting hysterically and not helping. You made comments to suggest that your wife had tripped and fallen, and told the first responders that they had to save her, like they do ‘in the movies’.
Ambulance paramedics arrived and, a short time later, Ms Roumeliotis was declared dead. A crime scene was established and an investigation commenced. You made a number of false statements to police and pretended to have discovered Ms Roumeliotis’ body when you and Sally went into the garage.
In the early hours of 1 December, crime scene investigators formed the opinion that Ms Roumeliotis may have been upright when she was first struck, but she was forcibly struck multiple times to the head region while on or low to the floor. The car ramp, which was large and heavy, was used to inflict at least some of these injuries.
Later that day, you were arrested by members of the homicide squad. You consented to a medical examination and scratches on both your hands and arms were observed. These were likely to have occurred within 24 hours. After the examination, you made a number of comments, including saying that the garage scene began as an accident and that everything you had told police was correct up to when she arrived home. You said, ‘that’s why I’ve got some scratches and stuff’ and ‘I knew it would come out’. You said, ‘I’m very sorry for the whole thing, very, very sorry to Sally, to my poor wife’. You said it was very shocking because it did not need to go like that. You otherwise did not give an account of what happened. You were charged with murder and remanded into custody, where you have remained.
Victim impact
Ten victim impact statements were received by the court. Sally’s victim impact statement was read aloud by her Uncle Arthur. She was just 11 years old when you killed her mother. She said her mother’s love was like just being in a hug forever. Because of you, she will not get to sing or dance or joke with her mother ever again. It is hard for her to believe that someone she trusted for 11 years would hurt her so deeply; half her heart is gone and it will never come back. She is mortified by what you did and she will be forever.
Arthur said that knowing his sister was murdered in her own home, where she should have been safe, is the hardest thing he has ever experienced. The burden fell on Arthur to tell Sally that her mother was dead, to tell his own children that their aunty was dead, and to tell his parents that their beloved daughter was dead. It has been extremely hard for him to handle the anger, stress, grief, heartache, sadness and disbelief of it all. It pains him to see the toll that his sister’s death has taken on his elderly parents, who were once full of life and happiness. He and his wife are also now responsible for raising Sally, who has been through too much. He, together with Louise and their two children, are committed to giving Sally the best possible upbringing and making her mother proud.
Arthur’s wife, Louise, said the impact of losing Ms Roumeliotis has been vast. She recalls trying to resuscitate her, and nothing can remove the images of this that have fixed in her mind. She and Arthur have two children of their own and now they have Sally to care for too. They have worked extremely hard to provide Sally with a loving and secure household, and Louise was proud to report that Sally is doing well. However, it has not been easy. Louise now suffers debilitating anxiety around the idea of losing her own husband, as without him, she could not bear the weight of responsibility that they now carry. Some of her happiest memories have been ruined because they have become a sad reminder of Ms Roumeliotis’ absence and because you, her murderer, were such a big part of these moments.
Ms Roumeliotis’ cousin, Faye, said the brutality of her cousin’s death intensified her grief and left her feeling a deep and pervasive sadness. It has been heart‑wrenching to witness the grief and distress of Ms Roumeliotis’ parents. She said her cousin was a respectful and loving woman known for her many admirable qualities and devoted to her daughter Sally.
Aphrodite is also a cousin of Ms Roumeliotis. She said the loss of her cousin caused immense emotional trauma and distress. She too has observed the visible pain and suffering that Ms Roumeliotis’ elderly parents have endured and it weighs on her heart. Aphrodite suffers from anxiety and other stress related symptoms, and frequently experiences poor sleep, due to distressing thoughts of what Ms Roumeliotis went through in her last moments.
A third cousin, George, wrote that he is overcome with deep sadness, having witnessed the emotional and physical pain endured by Ms Roumeliotis’ parents, her brother, her child and other family members.
Leni is the teenage daughter of Arthur and Louise, and was the niece of Ms Roumeliotis. She said it is so hard seeing her parents suffer and wishes she could do something, but she cannot. She remembers her home felt filled with sadness for so long and her home used to be her safe place. She said because of your unforgivable decision, she has had to go through the worst possible feelings she has ever felt. Her aunt was also her godmother, and she loved her so much. She said she will never forget the memories she made in the time she had with her beloved aunt.
Three of Ms Roumeliotis’ friends also provided victim impact statements. Her friend, Corina, said the events have left her with a deep pervasive sadness that lingers in every aspect of her life. She has lost a colleague with whom she shared ideas, discussed cases and leaned on for support. Ms Roumeliotis was her sidekick and the sadness of knowing she will no longer be there is overwhelming.
Tasoula Zakis was a long term friend. She and Ms Roumeliotis spoke often, sharing the joys and challenges of raising their daughters, their fears and their vulnerabilities. Ms Zakis said that since that devastating day, she has spiralled into intense emotional turmoil, feeling waves of apathy, despair and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. She misses her friend desperately. A deep void exists during birthdays, Easter and Christmas.
Another long term friend, Zoe Moutafis, has also been devastated by what you did. She said the tragic death of her friend of over 26 years has left an enormous void in her life. It has negatively impacted not only her, but her husband and children, and has caused pain and sorrow to their extended family. She said that days that should be celebrations, like Mother’s Day and name days, are a continual reminder that her friend is no longer here and reunions with mutual friends are shrouded by clouds of darkness and sadness.
The victims extend beyond those who provided statements. In particular, it is evident from the statements I do have that the parents of Ms Roumeliotis have been devastated by the death of their beloved only daughter. Your crime has horrified and traumatised the many victims in this case. The impact on them all has been profound and their pain and grief is enduring.
Personal circumstances
You were born on 31 January 1970 in Italy. You are the eldest of two boys, born almost two years apart. Your parents migrated to Australia when you were around 4 years old. You had a close relationship with your father who worked in a mechanic shop, detailing and servicing cars. Your father later went on to hold a variety of positions including in local radio and editing Italian cultural magazines. Your mother was very industrious and worked in a variety of jobs, such as quality control in an electrical factory and clerical work at an Italian newspaper. You admired both your parents for their adaptability and their work ethic.
Your primary school was interrupted by frequent moves and you recall attending at least four different primary schools. You experienced some racially motivated bullying while at primary school, but this dissipated as you moved through high school. You performed well at high school and completed Year 12, working part‑time in hospitality throughout your later school years. You commenced chemical engineering at RMIT but left after the first year, as you felt compelled by your family’s financial circumstances to join the workforce and contribute to the household income. Your parents separated in the early 1990s. You continued to reside with your mother and to assist her both financially and emotionally. During these years, you held a variety of positions in hospitality, furniture removal, food delivery and in a mechanic’s workshop. In 1994, your father remarried and went on to have a son, Leonardo, who is your half‑brother.
You have always been involved with the Italian community in Melbourne. In 1995, you commenced a longstanding position with the Italian Institute of Culture and worked your way up to the role of Coordinator of Cultural Events, liaising with diplomats and artists to showcase all aspects of Italian culture in Melbourne. You remained in this position until 2005.
Sometime in 2001, you commenced working with your brother who held a number of Australia Post contracts. This would involve assisting with an early mail run before commencing your second job. In May 2001, you suffered a brain aneurysm requiring life‑saving neurosurgery. Around 2018, you were treated for cardiac arrhythmia. Apparently, your symptoms occasionally resurface but you are not medicated and have never been hospitalised for this condition. You continued your contract work with Australia Post until the Covid‑19 vaccine became a condition of employment in 2020. Following the loss of this work, you were forced to rely on a casual property maintenance business you had previously dabbled in. In May 2022, your father passed away following a brain aneurysm.
Your relationship with Ms Roumeliotis has been the only significant relationship of your life. Apparently, throughout the duration of your marriage, you grappled with a gambling addiction to varying degrees. At the time of the incident, I am told you had resumed gambling. Approximately one week before your crime, a mutual friend received a lengthy text message from you requesting a loan of $4,500. Supposedly, you needed the loan to cover for money you had lent without your wife’s knowledge to a friend of yours to pay for their parent’s funeral. It seems that this story was false and you likely needed the money because of gambling debts.
Gravity of the offending
Murder is always and intrinsically a very serious offence. You have taken the life of another human being. Ms Roumeliotis was doing no more than returning from work, to her own home, when you violently killed her. She was utterly defenceless in the face of your unprovoked and vicious attack. There remains no real explanation by you for why you did this, and your moral culpability is high.
I accept that while the attack happened immediately after Ms Roumeliotis got out of her vehicle, there is no evidence that would allow me to conclude the attack was premeditated. The weapon you used appears to have been something that was nearby and available, and it is not said you armed yourself before entering the garage.
Your crime was one of family violence, and as has been said before, the murder of a domestic partner is the most extreme form of family violence.[2] Your wife and your young daughter both trusted you. You were meant to care for them and protect them from harm. Instead, you blew apart that trust when you committed this crime. Ms Roumeliotis was killed in her own home, the one place where she was entitled to feel completely safe and secure.
[2]DPP v Lindemann [2024] VSC 220, [96].
Your post‑offence conduct aggravates your offending. It has added to the sense of grief and betrayal felt particularly by Ms Roumeliotis’ family. Allowing Sally to enter the garage and see the bloodied body of her mother is a deeply aggravating aspect of your offending. Your counsel submitted that your actions after the incident were borne of denial, panic and disbelief at what you had done. In my view, no amount of panic or denial can explain how you could allow your own daughter to enter the garage on this day.
Other matters
You have pleaded guilty, and while your plea was entered reasonably late in the proceedings, it nonetheless entitles you to a meaningful sentencing discount. Importantly, your guilty plea has spared Sally the trauma of being cross‑examined in a criminal trial. Sally was not required to attend any of the pre‑trial hearings. She has not had to watch her police interview, which would doubtless have been retraumatising, and she has not had to relive the events of this day in a court room. These are significant matters in mitigation. By pleading guilty, you have relieved all the witnesses of the trauma of having to give evidence and recall the details of this event. You have also spared Ms Roumeliotis’ friends and wider family the ordeal of a criminal trial. Your guilty plea provides some evidence of remorse. It shows an acceptance of responsibility by you for your offending, and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
Since being in custody, you have been a well‑behaved and orderly prisoner. You have engaged with programs including gambling help services. You have completed a number of educational courses, and various certificates were tendered on your behalf. You have also been working as a unit billet, which is a position of trust and responsibility within the prison system.
Your brother, mother, half‑brother and step‑mother all provided character references on your behalf. They are shocked and disbelieving of your crime. They have never known you to be physically threatening or violent, and you were raised with strong moral values. They find your crime incomprehensible as they knew you to be caring and supportive, and a loving husband and father.
You have lost, probably forever, your relationship with Sally. While you are entirely to blame for this, it is nonetheless a real source of misery for you. You are also responsible for your own parents and extended family losing the relationships they had with Sally, which adds to your guilt and distress. You intend to cooperate fully with any legal proceedings to ensure Sally receives the full benefit of the estate.
The question of your remorse is not straightforward. Your brother, Michael, wrote of how you frequently cry when you mention your wife or daughter and continually say that you miss them. Your half‑brother also wrote of how much you miss them and how totally devastated you are by their ‘loss’. You have been seeing the prison chaplain, who provided a reference. The chaplain wrote that you are struggling with the great impact that the ‘loss’ of your wife has had on your daughter and other close family members. According to the chaplain, your sorrow is profound and you are burdened by the emotional weight of this ‘tragic incident’. There are multiple references to loss, tragedy and the ‘incident’ in the material tendered on your behalf. This was a murder; you did not lose your wife in a tragic accident. I accept that your pain and expressions of regret are genuine, but nothing in the material indicates to me that you have truly and fully confronted what you did.
Assessing a person’s prospects of rehabilitation when they are facing a lengthy prison sentence is always difficult. You are now aged 54, and by the time you are eligible for parole, you will be 71 years old. You have no criminal history or history of violence, and until this day, you led a productive and peaceful life. These are matters favourable to you and I take them into account. In my view, your overall prospects of rehabilitation are at least good. My assessment is tempered somewhat by my conclusion that you still do not seem to have fully come to terms with your actions.
Standard sentence
The standard sentence for murder is 25 years’ imprisonment. The figure of 25 years is intended to represent the sentence for an offence of murder ‘in the middle range of seriousness’ taking into account ‘only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence’.[3] The standard sentence must not be treated as the starting point from which to add or subtract time.[4] It is one factor I must take into account.[5]
[3]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’) s 5A(1)(b).
[4]DPP v Lindemann [2024] VSC 220, [117] (Hollingworth J).
[5]The Act s 5(2)(ab); Clarke (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 89, [27] citing McPherson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 53, [31] (Priest and T Forrest JJA).
I am obliged to disregard sentencing practices for murder that predate the introduction of standard sentencing,[6] although the principles found in those cases remain of relevance.[7] I am also required to fix a non‑parole period of at least 70% of the head sentence unless it is in the ‘interests of justice’ to do otherwise,[8] which is not suggested here.
[6]The Act s 5B(2)(b).
[7]Brown v The Queen (2019) 59 VR 462, 464 [4].
[8]The Act s 11A(4)(b).
For the reasons I have been through, the sentence I impose in this case will be slightly lower than the standard sentence.[9] Those reasons include a number of subjective matters, including your guilty plea and your lack of prior convictions. None of this should be understood to detract from the seriousness of your offending, or its devastating impact on the victims.
[9]The Act ss 5B(4)(a) and (5).
Conclusion and sentence
The frequency with which men kill women, in circumstances of domestic or family violence, is shocking. Murder committed in circumstances of family violence must be publicly condemned by the courts and you must be punished for your crime. General deterrence is an important sentencing principle; that is, through sentencing, the courts must endeavour to send a message to other would‑be offenders that such crimes will result in substantial terms of imprisonment.
On the charge of murder, you are sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment. I fix a non‑parole period of 18 years and six months’ imprisonment.
I declare you have served 707 days by way of presentence detention, such period to be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.
I make the disposal order sought by the prosecution.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Act, I declare that but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is 28 years’ imprisonment and I would have fixed a non‑parole period of 23 years’ imprisonment.
2
5
0