JUDGE:	Bell J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 August, 13 October and 17 November 2017
DATE OF SENTNECE:	21 December 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Paulino (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 794

---

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder by husband of wife – guilty verdict of jury after plea of not guilty – family violence – gender-based violence – many aggravating considerations – two adult sons left orphaned – murder preceded by pattern of coercive control by accused of victim – breach of intervention order – profound impact upon victims – evolution of sentencing practices for crimes of family violence – general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment – particular nature and gravity of the offending where man has killed a woman in family violence context – need for strong condemnation and condign punishment – vindicating fundamental value of respect for women as an aspect of just punishment – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the prosecution	Mr A Tinney SC	Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the defence	Mr D A Dann QC with Ms O A Trumble	Tony Hargreaves & Partners

HIS HONOUR:

Fernando Manuel Paulino, on 15 June 2017 after a trial of some 30 days, you were found guilty by a jury of twelve of the charge of murdering your wife Teresa Paulino (née Mancuso) at Reservoir in the State of Victoria on 15 July 2013. You pleaded not guilty. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this crime, the maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment.

The jury delivered its verdict the day after what would have been Teresa’s 53^rd birthday. She is to be remembered not only for the way that she died but for the way that she lived. She was a loving mother to her sons Daniel and Luke, a loving sister to Francesca, Melina and Patrick, and a loved one of other relatives and friends far too many to mention. I will single out her brother-in-law, Nick Franco and the family friend Michael Cardamone, who went looking for Teresa on the night concerned and found her dead in her home.

Determined to be her own person, when the boys were old enough she left her unhappy marriage with you in 2010 to rebuild her life in her mid-forties. Living with her elderly mother, Teresa was engaged in productive employment, and had an active social life with many friends at work and in the community. Her next door neighbours, Nina and Petros Katsopoulos, looked out for her. She was in a loving relationship with her new boyfriend, Dario Farello, to whom she was going on the night she died. He was a very sad presence in the witness box as he was hoping the relationship would develop. Her work friends consoled her when your harassment…

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 Paulino

Details

AGLC: DPP v Paulino [2017] VSC 794
Case: [2017] VSC 794
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Paulino involved the prosecution of the defendant for the murder of his wife, following a plea of not guilty by the accused. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central dispute in this case was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, who was convicted of murder by a jury, amidst a backdrop of significant family and gender-based violence.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating factors present in this case, including the pattern of coercive control exerted by the defendant over the victim, the breach of an intervention order, and the profound impact of the crime on the victims' two adult sons who were left orphaned. The court needed to balance the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment with the particular nature and gravity of the offending within the context of family violence.

The court concluded that the murder was preceded by a pattern of coercive control by the defendant towards the victim, culminating in a strong condemnation and condign punishment. The court emphasised the need to vindicate the fundamental value of respect for women as an aspect of just punishment. In determining the sentence, the court referred to the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the evolution of sentencing practices for crimes of family violence. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders