JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25 November & 8 December 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Aliti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 825

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — By unlawful and dangerous act — TT (aged 20) came to assist friends in possible fight with another group of young males — TT’s group of seven fought rival group of four — TT and three others chased rival group as they ran away from fight — LA (aged 18) then came to scene in response to earlier call for help from friend in rival group — LA followed both groups but then stopped — TT subsequently ceased chase, turned and headed back in direction of LA — TT unarmed and displayed no aggression towards LA — LA frightened nevertheless — LA, in fear and panic, stabbed TT once to chest and once to hip — Chest wound fatal — LA fled without assisting TT — Callous post-offence remark by LA — LA tried to conceal crime by disposing of SIM card and clothing — Knife never found — Profound victim impact — TT’s parents lost only child — Young offender — Immature and impressionable — Plea of guilty — Remorse — No prior convictions — Positively good character — Excellent prospects of rehabilitation — LA’s epilepsy increases hardship of incarceration — Pandemic restrictions in custody — Current sentencing practices — Importance of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and rehabilitation — Specific deterrence and community protection of less weight — Parsimony — LA assessed as suitable for youth justice centre (“YJC”) order — But maximum YJC order of four years’ detention disproportionate to gravity of offence — Longer sentence required, achievable only by prison sentence — Yet LA impressionable, immature and likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in adult prison — Sentence of six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three-and-a-half years — Court recommends to Adult Parole Board that LA be transferred to YJC to serve prison sentence — But for plea of guilty, sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of six years — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 4A, 5 & 322K; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 3, 5, 6AAA & 32; Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), ss 356I & 471.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms J McGarvie	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Richter QC with Ms C Marcs	Seda Kilic & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

OVERVIEW

On a winter’s evening last year, in the middle of Oakleigh, three young males casually traded slights of the middle-finger kind. As innocuous as these puerile gestures may have seemed, mutual offence was taken and things soon got well out of hand. Initially, there…

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 R v Aliti

Details

AGLC: R v Aliti [2021] VSC 825
Case: [2021] VSC 825
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aliti involves the sentencing of LA, who fatally stabbed TT, an unarmed 20-year-old, during a fight between rival groups of young males. The incident occurred when LA, aged 18, responded to a call for help from a friend in the rival group and stabbed TT in a moment of fear and panic. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for LA, considering factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, LA’s age and character, and the potential impact of incarceration on LA’s health and well-being.

The court needed to balance several sentencing principles, including general deterrence, denunciation, and the need for just punishment, with the importance of rehabilitation and the specific circumstances of the offender. Given LA's young age, impressionability, and lack of prior convictions, the court also had to consider the potential negative influences of adult prison environments. The court acknowledged the significant impact on TT’s family, who lost their only child, and the mitigating factors such as LA's plea of guilty and remorse.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that while LA was suitable for a youth justice centre order, the maximum four-year detention period was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court imposed a sentence of six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years. Given LA's health conditions and the potential adverse effects of incarceration during the pandemic, the court recommended that LA serve the sentence in a youth justice centre. Had LA not pleaded guilty, the sentence would have been nine years with a non-parole period of six years.

The court issued orders in accordance with its sentencing decision, recommending that LA be transferred to a youth justice centre to serve the prison sentence, considering the unique circumstances and mitigating factors.

Orders