Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Ristevski

DPP v Ristevski

Case [2019] VSC 253 18 April 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0213

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BORCE RISTEVSKI

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 March 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 April 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ristevski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 253

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Plea of guilty – Offender killed wife of 27 years in the marital home – Post offence conduct included disposal of body which was not found for eight months – Cause of death unable to be determined due to decomposition of body – How or why offender killed wife unknown – Offender has no criminal antecedents – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Total effective sentence of nine years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of six years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane QC with Mr M Fisher	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes SC with Mr S Norton	Stary, Norton, Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Circumstances of offending

Borce Ristevski, on the morning of 29 June 2016, you and your wife Karen Anne Ristevski, to whom you had been married for some 27 years, were at home at 23 Oakley Drive, Avondale Heights. Your 21-year-old daughter Sarah, who also lived there, spoke to both of you before she headed off to work. Sarah was never to see her mother alive again. Within a couple of hours of Sarah’s departure, you had killed your wife, disposed of her body in a forest in the Macedon Regional Park and started down a road of deceit that you were to continue on for nearly three years.

Although, by your plea of guilty to manslaughter, you have finally accepted responsibility for killing Karen, you have not revealed how or why you killed your wife. You may have turned off the road of deceit but you have not taken the high road of full and frank disclosure consistent with true remorse. This explains in large part why the discount for your plea of guilty will be less than you might otherwise expect.

You accepted the accuracy of the lengthy prosecution summary given at your plea hearing. Much of that summary was understandably taken up with your deceitful post offence conduct. The following condensed summary of your offending and post offence conduct comes in part from the concluding section of the prosecution summary. [1]
[1]The first four paragraphs of my condensed summary are based on [95] to [98] of the Prosecution Summary.

Based upon CCTV footage, mobile telecommunications data and network communication towers and the varying accounts given by you and a number of witnesses, you killed Karen inside your home sometime between 8.58 and 10.43 on the morning of 29 June 2016.

Within a very short time of killing Karen, you put her body into the boot of her own car and then drove from the house. You left the…

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 Ristevski

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSC 253
Case: [2019] VSC 253
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Ristevski was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Ristevski, was charged with manslaughter following the death of his wife, with whom he had been married for 27 years. The body of the deceased was discovered eight months after the offence, but due to the extent of decomposition, the cause of death could not be determined, and it remains unknown how or why the killing occurred. The dispute primarily concerns the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who pleaded guilty to the charge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed should reflect the unique circumstances of the case, including the disposal of the body, the absence of any criminal history on the part of the defendant, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors against the gravity of the offence, which involved the unlawful killing of a spouse. Additionally, the court needed to determine the non-parole period, ensuring it was just and proportionate to the crime committed.

The court acknowledged the unusual circumstances of the case, including the concealment of the body and the lack of a clear motive or method. Despite the heinous nature of the offence, the court recognised Ristevski's lack of prior criminal conduct and his potential for rehabilitation. In sentencing, the court imposed a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The court believed this sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court are that the defendant shall serve a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This decision reflects the court's assessment of the unique circumstances of the case, the defendant's lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders