DPP v Defrutos

Case [2006] VSC 474


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1483 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
MANUAL DEFRUTOS

---

JUDGE:

TEAGUE J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

27-30 November, 4 December 2006

DATE OF SENTENCE:

11 December 2006

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

DPP v Defrutos

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2006] VSC 474

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Attempted murder – Ambush and shooting in a suburban park at night – Imprisonment for 11 years – Non-parole period of 8 years

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the DPP Mr D. Brown Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mr J. Hannebery Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

  1. Manual Defrutos, you have been found guilty by a jury of the attempted murder of Anthony McCallum on 23 July 2004.  On that night, you shot Anthony McCallum in the chest.  The shooting took place in a park immediately south of the Flying Duck Hotel in Prahran.

  1. Your links to Anthony McCallum go back a couple of decades.  You and he played together in the same football team in the 1980’s.  Early in the year 2000, it was drinking at the Flying Duck Hotel that brought you together again.  Anthony McCallum lived nearby.  He was then in a relationship with a Caroline Mildenhall.  He and she drank there regularly.  Early in 2000, you started to drink at the hotel.  That led to your renewing your acquaintanceship with Anthony McCallum.  That led to your becoming an acquaintance of Caroline Mildenhall. 

  1. Later in the year 2000, Anthony McCallum spent some weeks in London.  While he was away, you got to know Caroline Mildenhall better.  That led to your commencing a short-term affair with her.  When he returned from London, Anthony McCallum learned of the affair.  He was upset, but continued in the relationship with Caroline Mildenhall.  Anthony McCallum made it clear to you that he wanted no more to do with you.  You resented the outcome.  Every so often during the next three years, you chose to display your resentment towards Anthony McCallum, and your continuing interest in Caroline Mildenhall.  You insisted on a payment of $2,000 from Anthony McCallum for a trifling service which you rendered to him.  On two occasions, both chance encounters, you assaulted Anthony McCallum.  On St Valentine’s Day in 2003, you sent to Caroline Mildenhall a letter.  The letter spoke fondly of her, but critically of Anthony McCallum. 

  1. As at July 2004, you knew where Anthony McCallum lived.  You knew that he frequented the Flying Duck Hotel.  The park next to the hotel was one which he was accustomed to walk through at night from time to time.  On the night of 23 July 2004, you were waiting for Anthony McCallum in that park.  As he moved through it on his way home, you approached him.  You had with you a handgun.  You were wearing the type of clothes such that it was only possible for him to identify you when you had come up close to him.  He recognised that you were the person who had approached him only as you were raising the gun.  He turned quickly as you fired the first time.  He was shot in the chest at about the level of his heart.  Fortunately for him and for you, because he turned quickly, the bullet took an entry and exit path across the front of his right ribs.  He ran off.  As he was running, you fired a second shot.  It missed him altogether.

  1. I have read the victim impact statement prepared by Anthony McCallum.  He seems to have coped with the near-death experience more phlegmatically than most people could have been expected to.  Nevertheless, the statement shows that the psychological effects of being shot by you have caused continuing problems for him.

  1. You have chosen not to have matters addressed to me as to the detail of matters personal to you or otherwise on the plea.  I know little more than that you are 49 years of age, that your parents and a brother are still alive, and that you have worked as a soft tissue therapist.  You have 25 prior convictions, from five Magistrates’ Court appearances between 1981 and 1995.  They were mainly drugs and deception offence convictions.  None was for an offence of violence.  As to heroin offences, you received a suspended prison sentence.  As to the other offences, fines were imposed. 

  1. This attempted murder was a serious instance of a serious crime.  There is a need for denunciation, general deterrence, special deterrence and rehabilitation to be appropriately allowed for in imposing the sentence.  I have reviewed many recent sentences imposed for attempted murder.  Because the adverse consequences of your actions were not nearly as serious as in many other cases, your crime falls to be assessed close to the middle of the range.  Given the necessary element of an intention to kill, the premeditated character of the ambushing, the use of a gun, and the absence of any indication of remorse, your crime still calls for a long prison sentence.

  1. I have signed the order as to the taking of a forensic sample which was sought but not consented to.  I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the making of the order is justified having regard to the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending.  I am required to inform you that a member of the police force may use reasonable force to enable the forensic procedure to be conducted.

  1. I declare 12 days of pre-sentence detention and direct that that be entered in the records.  I sentence you to 11 years imprisonment.  I fix a non-parole period of 8 years.

Details
AGLC
Director of Public Prosecutions v Defrutos [2006] VSC 474
Case
[2006] VSC 474
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Defrutos was heard in the High Court. The defendant, Defrutos, was convicted of the attempted murder of a man in a suburban park. The victim was ambushed and shot at night, suffering serious injuries. Defrutos was subsequently sentenced to 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate in the circumstances of the crime. The defence argued that the sentence was excessively harsh, given the defendant's background and the mitigating factors presented. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the severity of the crime warranted a lengthy sentence to adequately reflect the gravity of the attempted murder.

The High Court examined the principles of sentencing for attempted murder, taking into account the nature of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The court found that while the attempted murder was a serious crime, the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law. The court noted the violent and premeditated nature of the attack, the significant injuries sustained by the victim, and the defendant's criminal history, which included previous violent offences. The court concluded that the sentence of 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years, was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, dismissing the appeal. The defendant's sentence of 11 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years, remains in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.