DPP v Paulino
[2017] VSC 794
•21 December 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2016 0036
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| FERNANDO MANUEL PAULINO |
---
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 53rd 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 brought her to tears. Her girlfriends, including Esther Aliano (who spoke to Teresa just before she died), were there for her always. Teresa was empathetic, friendly, courageous, productive, took pride in her attractive appearance and, despite your constant attempt to exercise coercive control over her post-separation life, was active, growing and free.
Teresa was terrified of you but refused to live a life of victimhood and regret. She did not passively surrender to your violence when she died. She screamed a scream not just of that terror but of accusation, loud enough to be heard by Nina and Petros, so marking the time of the crime and helping to bring you to ultimate justice. Such is the full measure of the life that has been lost, to her family, her friends and the community. We are all diminished by it.
The court is required to take account of the impact of the offence upon victims (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(2)). Teresa was very important in the lives of a lot of people. It is a noted feature of this case that family members, friends and others who were part of Teresa’s circle have been absolutely traumatised by the fact and manner of her killing. With many who gave evidence it was as if they too had been rendered lifeless by what occurred. The victim impact statements from Daniel, Luke, Melina, Francesca (and her husband Nick) and Patrick stand as understated testimony to the heavy burden of collective and individual trauma that is being carried. All of these persons and many others participated in the difficult and long investigative and trial process in Teresa’s name to bring the perpetrator to justice, despite the immense personal emotional cost to themselves. The court and the community is grateful to them. The profound impact of the crime upon victims, particularly upon the sons and siblings of the deceased, is a strong consideration in this case.
Yet again the court is confronted with family violence of the most extreme kind, one in which the offender is a man and the victim is a woman who is or was his intimate partner, in this case his wife of over twenty years, albeit estranged. The murder was committed in the face of an intervention order obtained by the woman for protection from the man. The crime is one of jealousy, hatred and rage by a male against a woman who just wanted to be equal, independent and free, or more simply just wanted to be. Reflecting the outrage felt by the community over crimes such as this in circumstances such as this, the court absolutely condemns what you have done as found by the jury, for which the punishment must be condign. As King J has said in several cases and specifically so in R v Mulhall, ‘the law will do all it can to protect women from violent domestic partners’.[1] Therefore, the court condemns family violence in the strongest possible terms and stresses that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are strong sentencing considerations in this case. As we will see, it is also necessary to understand the particular gravity and nature of the crime.
[1][2012] VSC 471 (10 October 2012) [33].
The people who feature in this case are members of ordinary families going about their lives in the Western suburbs and nearby, making something of themselves, working in businesses and employment, raising children, playing sport and hanging out with friends, going to school and having boyfriends and girlfriends, supporting each other through all of life’s usual ups and downs. Into this apparent normality comes a husband threatening to kill his estranged wife and being quite open about it; shamelessly slut-shaming her to her sons, family and friends; nuisance-calling her; following her and abusing her and her boyfriend; making work difficult for her; frightening her; and trying frequently by various means to make her life a misery. Soon after proceedings in the Family Court of Australia are issued by her and just before an important hearing over property, the woman is brutally and savagely stabbed many times by her husband in her own home, despite an intervention order. The scene of the crime, as sadly discovered by Nick and Michael, is bloodied and horrible to behold. A father has killed a mother and thereby orphaned his own children. Once again the court and the community have to confront the ugly reality that there are men who would kill their wives or other intimate partners because they think they can, regardless of the consequence for family and friends. Teresa silently speaks from the grave holding up a mirror to society, and particularly to men, for us to look deeply at what lies within. There is clearly something terribly wrong here.
On the evidence that must have been accepted by the jury, the circumstances of aggravation are many and severe. The murder was brutal and carried out with weapons, coldly and callously with a high degree of violence; it occurred in Teresa’s own home, where she should have felt safe, to which you went unlawfully and armed; there was careful planning and premeditation to execute the crime in secret and cover it up with a false alibi, which was falsely maintained; the killing involved a grievous breach of trust of the relationship you had with Teresa and your sons, about which I will say more; the context was one in which you made threats towards Teresa and others, character assassinated her with abuse of various kinds, including promiscuity, and made spurious allegations of involvement in pornography, and nuisance-called, followed and made unwelcome contact with her; there were proceedings in the Family Court on foot to which the crime was in some way related in your mind; and an intervention order was in place. This is, therefore, a very serious example of the crime of murder.
Without minimising the importance of the other features of aggravation, I emphasise the betrayal of your relationship with Teresa, and Daniel and Luke, which the murder involved. Over a period of time after separating from Teresa in 2010, you allowed jealousy, hatred and rage to boil to the point that you decided to kill her when the opportunity arose, which it did. You were able to carry out your intentions because you had family knowledge about where Teresa was living and her general movements and circumstances. In doing so you betrayed not only Teresa’s trust but that of Daniel and Luke’s. You deprived your sons of their mother. Their victim impact statements stand as personal testimony to the love that they had and have for her, and their inconsolable sense of loss.
I want to say that Daniel (who is aged 27 years) and Luke (who is aged 25 years) are impressive young men who have endured much in recent years. They have undergone a rite of passage far more difficult than most. Under adverse circumstances and supported by relatives and friends, they have done their duty by giving evidence in the trial of the man charged by the state on behalf of the community with the murder of their mother. I have taken note of everything they have said in their victim impact statements, as I have of those of Teresa’s siblings and in-law. When reading his victim impact statement to the court at the plea hearing, Luke spoke proudly for himself and his whole family in the memory of his mother, calmly enduring your self-serving, opportunistic and unfatherly interruptions from the dock, which only served to reinforce how remorseless this crime really was.
In the context of aggravation, I referred to the intervention order not for reasons of formality. To murder a person protected by a family violence intervention order is a very serious matter. Family violence intervention orders are not worthless pieces of paper. The general purpose of such an order is to provide legally enforceable protection for the safety of the individual, usually a woman at risk of violence from a man.[2] The contravention in the present case is not separately charged but represents a seriously aggravating feature of the murder.
[2] Section 1 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) provides that the purpose of the Act is to:
(a)maximise safety for children and adults who have experienced family violence; and
(b)prevent and reduce family violence to the greatest extent possible: and
(c)promote the accountability of perpetrators of family violence for their actions.
Your personal circumstances are that you were born in Lisbon, Portugal on 31 December 1961 and are presently aged 55 years, nearly 56 years. Your father died in 2008, sadly committing suicide in the family holiday house in Rye after a long struggle with illness. Your mother is aged 87 years and has significant health problems. Until being taken into custody, you lived with and cared for her.
Your father was a high ranking officer in the Marines. When he was in service, your family moved from base to base in various Portuguese colonies, including Angola and Mozambique. The family ultimately went to France, where you started your education, until the family immigrated to Australia. You remain very close to your sisters Anna Paulino (aged 48 years) and Elizabeth Marasco (aged 46 years), and other family members, which is important in terms of your ultimate prospects for rehabilitation.
Upon arriving in Australia when you were aged about eight years, the family went to Richmond, and then moved to Reservoir. You attended Richmond Primary School, Reservoir West Primary School, Lakeside High School and Preston Technical College, where you completed year 12. You then commenced and completed an apprenticeship as an electrician at Oliver J Nilsen.
It was at Lakeside High School that you met Teresa, whom you married in 1987. Daniel was born in 1990 and Luke was born in 1992. The family lived at 1 Gretal Court in Taylors Lakes for more than 20 years. The marriage was long but not happy and you and Teresa separated in 2010, as I have said.
You had a very good work record. After completing your apprenticeship, you worked for JTC Electrical Services for 10 years, rising to the position of foreman. Aged about 30 years, you started your own business, FMP Services, which became Ferntech Electrical, and grew to include employed electricians from time to time. You were a self-employed electrician for some 25 years.
It is to that record of a hard-working family man that your ten character references speak. These reveal another side of your character, a person who is kind to family and friends, who has time for elderly people and took care of his aged mother. He is a person who inspires trust and confidence, one for whom the conviction is completely out of character. Among the referees are people with whom you have worked or have known for many years. You have been a positive influence in their lives. There is a niece and a nephew, who hold you in fond regard. None of these people see violence in you or hold any fears. I take into account the full contents of these references, and the material filed on your behalf in relation to the bail application. I specifically mention the references supplied by your sisters Anna and Elizabeth, whose love of and faith in you is undiminished, as also evidenced by their dignified presence during the course of this trial. Other family members have also supported you with their presence during the course of the trial.
I accept many of the submissions made by senior counsel on your behalf. Remorse is not demonstrated and you maintain your innocence. This is not to be held against you as a negative sentencing consideration. You have no criminal convictions and the three findings of guilt in 1999 and 2012 in relation to relatively minor matters are not relevant to this sentence. For all practical purposes, you present for sentencing for murder as a first offender. You are aged 55 years and on any view will spend a substantial part of your remaining life in prison. You have health issues and in particular PTSD and diabetes, which will make imprisonment somewhat harder. You have an excellent work history and can truthfully be described as a hard-working family man. You are supported by loyal friends and family, as I have mentioned. The crime is out of character for you and, given that support, you are not without hope of redemption. The murder of which you have been found guilty is very serious but not one in the worst category for which the maximum penalty is called for.
Over time, sentencing for crimes of family violence involving men as perpetrators and women as victims, as they usually are, has evolved and become better informed. There was a period when such crimes often went unreported, and were not taken sufficiently seriously by police and the courts when they were reported. By modern human rights standards, this represented institutional discrimination because equal respect and protection was not properly afforded to women in the system of justice and the sentencing process.
In line with changed community expectations, police and the courts began to recognise that, in relation to family violence, ensuring respect for the human rights of persons was at stake and that any victim of such a crime, whether a man or a woman, was entitled to equal justice. This represented formal equality of rights, a definite advance, but not one that necessarily captured well the specificity and subjectivity of women’s experience of family violence, which is much greater than and different to men’s, and the violation of their particular rights as women.
It is now increasingly recognised by police and the courts that family violence as a crime has a gender dimension because women are vastly overrepresented as victims and profoundly affected in particular ways that are not typical of men. Ensuring respect for their human rights not just as persons but as women is at stake. This is a more informed way of understanding the causes and consequences, as well as the fundamental nature, of the criminal wrong as it is perpetrated upon women by men. Substantive equality is more ensured by this approach, which leads to: greater account being taken of the specificity and subjectivity of women’s experience of family violence; greater emphasis being placed upon affording them real equal respect and protection as women in the criminal justice system, including the sentencing process; and ‘a more informed understanding of the consequences of family violence for victims’.[3]
[3]Kalala v The Queen [2017] VSCA 223 (30 August 2017) [3(iii)] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA, Osborne JA agreeing) (‘Kalala’).
None of this is to deny that sentencing is an individualised judicial responsibility, one that is necessarily personal to the offender and focused upon the nature and circumstances of the crime.[4] A person found guilty of murdering his wife is sentenced for the crime of murder not family violence or gender-based violence, which are categorical descriptions not crimes. The sentence is imposed, as it will be in this case, by reference to statutorily mandatory sentencing principles (see ss 5(1)–(2) of the Sentencing Act), which must be consistently applied.[5]
[4]Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483, 494–5 [27] (French CJ, Hayne, Keifel, Bell and Keane JJ); DPP v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) (2017) 91 ALJR 1063, 1072–3 [49] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ) (‘Dalgliesh’).
[5]Dalgliesh (2017) 91 ALJR 1063, 1072–3 [49] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
But society’s values and expectations in relation to the position and treatment of woman have evolved, which must be taken into account in the sentencing process,[6] as demonstrated in modern sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of this court, which now consistently emphasise the devastating impact of male family violence upon women, upon families and upon the community.[7] This is a particular application of the general principle that courts should ‘vindicate the properly informed values of the community and, equally significantly, that they are seen to do so’.[8] I will be directly applying this principle in this case in relation to the fundamental value of respect for women.
[6]R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256, 267 [21] (Bell, Gagelar, Keane, Nettle and Gordan JJ); Dalgliesh (2017) 91 ALJR 1063, 1074 [56]–[57] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
[7]See, eg, Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97 (22 May 2014) [53]–[54] (Neave JA and Kyrou JA); Filiz v The Queen [2014] VSCA 212 (11 September 2014) [23] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA) (‘Filiz’); DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314 (4 December 2014) [45] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Osborn JJA); DPP v Browning [2016] VSCA 153 (4 July 2016) [93] (Weinberg and Whelan JJA), [112] (Kaye JA); Kalala [2017] VSCA 223 (30 August 2017) [3(iii)] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA), [95] (Osborne JA).
[8]WCB v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 483, 493 [34] (Warren CJ and Redlich JA).
It may be that murder by men of women in the context of family violence is a prevalent crime. If so, this may be a valid sentencing consideration.[9] However, the prevalence of the crime would have to be properly established,[10] which has not been attempted in this case or yet any other. Prevalence as such is therefore not a sentencing consideration in this case and I do not take it into account. It is nonetheless a crime deserving of utter condemnation and condign sentence.
[9]R v Downie and Dandy [1998] 2 VR 517, 521–2 (Callaway JA, Phillips CJ and Batt JA agreeing).
[10]Nguyen v The Queen (2010) 31 VR 634, 694 [82] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA agreeing).
The court is required to take into account current sentencing practices (Sentencing Act s 5(2)(b)). There is a question whether current sentencing practices in relation to the murder of domestic partners ‘adequately reflect the seriousness with which such cases generally ought be viewed.’[11] However, the Court of Appeal has not undertaken the necessary review and it was not attempted in this case. In recent sentences of offenders for murder in the family violence context, trial judges of this court have not found it necessary to take this matter further[12] and have placed emphasis upon recent decisions of the Court of Appeal which have been highly condemnatory of crimes committed in this context (see above). That is the course I propose to take in this case, noting that the crime of murder must reflect the diverse circumstances in which it is committed and that current sentencing practices are only one (Sentencing Act s 5(2)(b)) and not a governing consideration.[13]
[11]DPP v Daing [2016] VSCA 58 (31 March 2016) [47] (Priest JA, Maxwell P and Weinberg JA agreeing) (‘Daing’).
[12]See, eg, DPP v McDermott [2016] VSC 489 (17 August 2016) [133]–[139] (Jane Dixon J); R v Banek [2017] VSC 11 (1 February 2017) [132]–[139] (Croucher J).
[13]Dalgliesh (2017) 91 ALJR 1063, 1074–5 [60]–[63] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
In relation to current sentencing practices, your senior counsel rightly referred to sentences for murder which he submitted were roughly comparable to your crime, while recognising certain legal and practical limitations in doing so. He relied upon the Sentencing Snapshot of the Sentencing Advisory Council dated April 2017 which provides statistics for sentences for murder. The average length of sentence of (non-life) imprisonment imposed for that crime ranged from 19 years and seven months in 2012–13 to 22 years and three months in 2015–16. The statistics do not distinguish between cases in which the plea was guilty as against not guilty. I find them to be of limited utility in this case, particularly because this is a very serious example of the crime charged. Senior counsel also referred to selected cases of murder between 2007 and 2016,[14] for which the sentences imposed were in the order of 20–23 years imprisonment with non-parole periods of 15–19 years. I have taken these decisions into account, particularly in relation to the underlying principles that were applied. While not intending in this case to impose a sentence that is inconsistent with current sentencing practices by reason of the importance of other sentencing principles, I do not think that sentences of the order imposed in these cases would be appropriate in this case.
[14]See Meade v The Queen; DPP v Meade [2015] VSCA 171 (26 June 2015) (Maxwell P, Redlich and Whelan JJA); Chalmers v The Queen (2011) 37 VR 464 (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Kyrou AJA); R v Boyle (2009) 26 VR 219 (Weinberg JA, Williams and Coghlan AJJA); DPP v Browning [2016] VSCA 153 (4 July 2016) (Weinberg, Whelan and Kaye JJA); R v McCullagh (No 3) (2007) 179 A Crim R 334 (Chernov, Vincent JJA and Whelan AJA); R v Gojanovic (No 2) [2007] VSCA 153 (14 August 2007) (Ashley, Kellam JJA and Kaye AJA) (‘Gojanovic (No 2)’); R v Yasso [2007] VSCA 306 (14 December 2007) (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Habersberger AJA); Felicite v The Queen (2013) 37 VR 329 (Redlich, Harper JJA and Robson AJA) (‘Felicite’); Filiz [2014] VSCA 212 (11 September 2014) (Maxwell P and Redlich JA).
The court is required to take into account the nature and gravity of the offending (Sentencing Act s 5(2)(c)). The offence is murder, the nature and gravity of which involved the destruction of Teresa’s most fundamental human right, her right to life. The nature and gravity of this offending is significantly aggravated by the considerations to which I have referred, but particularly the contextual considerations, which are quite specific to the crime of murder that you committed as a man upon your estranged wife as a woman. By these I mean the threats that you made towards Teresa, the character assassination with abuse of various kinds, including promiscuity, and spurious allegations of involvement in pornography, the nuisance-calling, following and unwelcome contact, and the breach of the intervention order. These were not random measures but represented a pattern of coercive control. Teresa had a right to personal dignity and autonomy, to physical and psychological integrity and to live an independent and fulfilling life free of fear from your violence. While always being a loving mother to Daniel and Luke, she struggled heroically to realise that life, and won a lot of ground against great odds. She was trying to be a positive role model for her sons. Motivated by jealousy, hatred and rage, you first tried to defeat her and then you punished her, which led to the murder. While the murder would mean that Teresa no longer had a life to live, it was the culmination of a pattern of behaviour aimed at preventing her from living the life she chose. Such was the particular nature of the offending, which is all the more grave for it.
In relation to your rehabilitation (Sentencing Act s 5(1)(c)), I have accepted that you are not beyond redemption, particularly having regard to the support of your family and friends. But I must be guarded about your actual prospects for rehabilitation because the criminal behaviour that was proved against you was so serious and resolute. As your offence involved the intentional destruction of life and there is no remorse, community protection (and specific deterrence) is a relevant consideration, although I take into account that you will be an elderly man upon release from imprisonment, even on parole.
It is well established that in cases of murder involving family violence, the principles of general deterrence (Sentencing Act s 5(1)(b)), denunciation (s 5(1)(d)) and just punishment (s 5(1)(a)) will ordinarily be strong considerations. As was stated by Redlich JA (Harper JA and Robson AJA agreeing) in Felicite v The Queen:
The taking of a domestic partner’s life undermines the foundations of personal relationships and family trust upon which our society rests. The sentence must reflect both the sanctity of human life and society’s abhorrence of violence towards vulnerable and trusting partners who could legitimately have expected the offender to be a protector from, not the perpetrator of violent abuse.[15] An outburst of homicidal rage in such contexts is totally unacceptable.[16] The community expectation is that the punishment assigned to such conduct must be condign so as to denounce in the strongest terms the abhorrent nature of domestic murder and to deter others from taking a similar course.[17] Accordingly the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment will ordinarily be given primacy in sentencing for the murder of a partner in a domestic setting …[18]
Your case did not involve an outburst of homicidal rage but a planned and premeditated murder, which only makes the application of the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment more called for.
[15]Diver v The Queen [2010] VSCA 254 (23 September 2010) [41] (Ashley JA, Neave and Weinberg JJA agreeing).
[16]Gojanovic (No 2) [2007] VSCA 153 (14 August 2007) [140] (Ashley and Kellam JJA and Kaye AJA).
[17]R v Doherty [2001] VSC 474 (7 December 2001) [21] (Bongiorno J), affd R v Doherty (2003) 6 VR 393 (Winneke P, Vincent JA and Ashley AJA); R v Davey [2006] VSC 173 (3 May 2006) [25] (Osborn J); R v Badanjak [2004] NSWCCA 395 (25 October 2004) [31] (Wood CJ at CL, McClellan AJA and Smart AJ agreeing).
[18]Felicite (2013) 37 VR 329, 333 [20], cited with approval in Daing [2016] VSCA 58 (31 March 2016) [44] (Priest JA, Maxwell P and Weinberg JA agreeing).
Following a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, the Victorian Systemic Review into Family Violence Deaths unit at the Coroners Court has been placed on a statutory footing by div 1C of pt 8 of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic). The function of the unit includes identifying risks and contributory factors associated with deaths resulting from family violence and identifying trends and patterns in such deaths and in responses to such deaths (s 102W). The unit is part of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, which is aligned to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children. This will not affect the sentence but I will be referring this case to the unit because it has features that the Coroner may consider worthy of examination from the point of view of predicting, acting upon the risks of and preventing family violence. In particular:
· the murder was preceded by threats to kill, character assassination and blaming directed towards the deceased that were open and persistent;
· there was an intervention order on foot, which was not a sufficient deterrent and the perpetrator behaved contemptuously towards police when they tried to get him to stop nuisance-calling the deceased;
· Family Court proceedings, initiated by the deceased, were on foot and had reached a critical stage;
· the parties had separated; and
· the deceased expressed a fear that her husband would kill her, which is what actually happened, despite police involvement in the matter.
Criminal sentencing according to applicable principles is the means by which the law gives effect to the fundamental purpose of protecting individuals and the community from crime. All women have an inviolable human right to life, to equality — not just the appearance of equality but to real equality — to physical and emotional integrity, to respect for their dignity and personal autonomy, to loving relationships with children and others, and to freedom from fear of physical or psychological harm. They look to the law for protection from men who would perpetrate the crime of murder upon them by reason of failing to control their jealousy, hatred and rage. While the police cannot be present in every home on every occasion of risk, the values and standards of human behaviour that the criminal law demands are always present. The courts must respond through the sentencing process when those standards are very seriously violated, as they have been in this case. This vindicates the interests of women in seeing that perpetrators are brought to justice, as well as the interests of the community in seeing that justice is so done. It also performs the important educative function of positively influencing how the community, and especially men, value, respect and treat women. Respect for women is a fundamental value that Teresa was trying to pass onto her sons. From their participation in this trial, I think she has been successful, which is a great gift that she has made to them. A purpose of this sentence is to vindicate the fundamental value of respect for women because, in a crime committed by a man upon a woman in the context of family violence, particularly where it is preceded or accompanied by a pattern of coercive control, it necessarily relates to what makes the punishment just (Sentencing Act s 5(1)(a)).
For those reasons, Fernando Manuel Paulino, on the charge of murdering your wife Teresa Paulino (née Mancuso) at Reservoir in the State of Victoria on 15 July 2013, you will be imprisoned for a period of 30 years. I direct that you serve a period of 25 years before you are eligible to apply for release on parole.
I declare that your pre-sentence detention is a period of 912 days not including this day and direct that this be entered in the records of the court and reckoned as time already served pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act. I will sign the disposal and forfeiture orders put forward.
8
26
0