R v Belete - [2007] VSC 296

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1437 of 2007

THE QUEEN

WONDIMU BELETE

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OFSENTENCE:	21 AUGUST 2007
DATES OF HEARING:	30-31 JULY, 1 AUGUST 2007; 3 AUGUST 2007 (PLEA)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v BELETE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 296

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Husband stabbed wife following access visit for children – No prior convictions – Plea of guilty during trial – Eleven years’ imprisonment – Minimum of eight years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Champion SC	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Chadwick	C. Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Wondimu Belete, you have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of your wife. It is now my duty to decide upon the appropriate punishment. In doing so, I am of course bound by the law. This sets out the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed. Those purposes are limited. One of them is to punish the offender. Another is to deter him or others from committing the same or a similar offence in the future. The third is to establish the conditions likely to assist with the rehabilitation of the offender. The fourth is to make it plain, if the offence was especially serious, that the court regards with abhorrence the conduct in which the offender engaged. The fifth is to protect the community from the offender. Finally, the court may adopt a combination of these purposes.

I have considered all five of these purposes, both individually and in combination. I will refer to the relevant facts giving rise to your attempt to kill your wife and then briefly mention each purpose in turn before considering some in more detail.

You and your wife separated in April 2006. Arrangements were made for you to have access to your two young children. On 10 November last year, you met your wife at the Flemington Police Station so that the children could spend some access time with you. You later returned to the Police Station, with the children, and handed them to your wife. She commenced to walk with them towards her place of residence. She had not travelled far before you approached her with a knife hidden in a hat. The knife had recently been sharpened, although I do not find that it was sharpened for the purpose for which you then used it. When you reached your wife, you attacked her in a frenzy, causing her dreadful injuries.

In the circumstance of your attack upon your wife, punishment must be an important consideration. This was a vicious assault with a vicious instrument. Great suffering resulted. Punishment must therefore play a significant part in my consideration of the appropriate penalty.

Deterrence is also a very real factor for consideration. Women are often at risk of violence from their husbands or domestic partners.…

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 Belete

Details

AGLC: R v Belete [2007] VSC 296
Case: [2007] VSC 296
Decision Date: 21 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a criminal matter involving a plea of guilty to attempted murder. The accused, Belete, had stabbed his wife following an access visit for their children. Belete had no prior convictions and entered his guilty plea during the trial. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of attempted murder, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. The court had to balance the severity of the offence against mitigating factors, including the accused's lack of prior convictions and the fact that he had pleaded guilty during the trial. The court also needed to consider the impact of the offence on the victim and the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the principles of sentencing for attempted murder and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence. The court noted the lack of prior convictions and the guilty plea as mitigating factors but also emphasised the seriousness of the attempted murder and the potential for significant harm to the victim. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years, reflecting both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender in sentencing.

Orders