DPP v Marmo - [2018] VSC 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0196

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

LUKE MARMO

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 January 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 February 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Luke Marmo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 31

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Assist offender – s 325(1) Crimes Act – Guilty plea – Providing petrol to principal offender to enable incineration of body and helping sand floorboards to eliminate forensic evidence of murder – Sentenced to 4 years NPP 2 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Doyle with Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Smallwood	Galbally & O’Bryan

HER HONOUR:

Luke Marmo, you have pleaded guilty to the charge of assist offender pursuant to s 325(1) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) for acts committed between 25 and 28 August 2015 done with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of Brendan Neil and Wayne Marmo for the murder of Simone Quinlan.

On 25 August 2015, Simone Quinlan was murdered by Brendan Neil and Wayne Marmo, who have already been sentenced by me.[1] You provided assistance to Neil and Marmo in facilitating the disposal of the body of Simone Quinlan and attempting to eliminate forensic evidence, whilst knowing or believing that Neil and Marmo were guilty of murder. You intended to help cover up their crime.
[1]DPP v Neil & Marmo [2017] VSC 761 (14 December 2017).

The maximum sentence for assisting offender where the principal offence is murder is offence is 20 years.

Background to the offending

The factual background to the charge against you was outlined in the Crown Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea (‘ASPO’).[2] An outline of defence submissions[3] and chronology[4] was filed on your behalf along with two psychological reports[5] and some urine drug screen results.[6] I have taken all these materials into account for the purposes of the plea. I have also had regard to evidence in the depositions and evidence put forward in the prosecution of the principal offenders.
[2]Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea, dated 21 November 2017. Tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 1. (‘ASPO’)
[3]Outline of defence submissions on behalf of Luke Marmo, dated 24 January 2018. Tendered as Defence Exhibit 1.
[4]Tendered as Defence Exhibit 2.
[5]Report of Patrick Newton, dated 18 November 2017, tendered as Defence Exhibit 3; Report of Gina Cidoni, dated 3 March 2016, tendered as Defence Exhibit 4.
[6]Five drug screen results from 4 Nov 2017 – 10 January 2018. Tendered as Defence Exhibit 5.

Simone Quinlan was savagely assaulted by Brendan Neil at his home at 21 Killarney Drive, Melton (‘the Killarney Drive premises’) over a number of hours. She was then wrapped in a blanket and placed in the back of a Hilux utility vehicle and taken away by Wayne Marmo to be disposed of.

Brendan Neil was your…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Marmo

Details

AGLC: DPP v Marmo [2018] VSC 31
Case: [2018] VSC 31
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against Marmo, concerning charges related to assisting a principal offender in the disposal of a body. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Marmo was charged with assisting an offender under section 325(1) of the Crimes Act, having provided petrol to the principal offender for the purpose of incinerating a body and assisted in sanding floorboards to eliminate forensic evidence of the murder. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Marmo, who pleaded guilty to the charges. The legal issues before the court included the appropriate application of the sentencing provisions under the Crimes Act, the nature and extent of Marmo’s involvement, and the degree of culpability in the crime.

The court considered the severity of the crime, Marmo's level of involvement, and the principles of justice and deterrence in determining the sentence. Given Marmo's plea of guilty, the court recognised this as a mitigating factor. However, the court also had to weigh the gravity of the offence, which involved assisting in the disposal of a body and the obliteration of forensic evidence, against Marmo’s cooperation with the authorities. The court found Marmo's actions to be significant in facilitating the crime, thus warranting a substantial penalty. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Marmo to a total of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of deterring such criminal activities and ensuring that those who assist in serious crimes face appropriate consequences. The sentence reflects the court's view that while Marmo's role was not that of the principal offender, his actions were nonetheless crucial in the commission of the crime. The final orders of the court were that Marmo be imprisoned for a total period of six years, with a non-parole period of four years.

Orders