R v Boshevski - [2011] VSC 303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2010 134

THE QUEEN

ROBERT BOSHEVSKI

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Boshevski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 303

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Plea of guilty – Substantial remorse – Alcoholism – Reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P D’Arcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D McKenzie	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Boshevski you have pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering Murray Reuter on 3 November 2009 at Cobram. Both you and Mr Reuter worked at an abattoir in Cobram and you shared a rental house at 12 Warkil Street Cobram.

It seems from the evidence that when you both were sober you were good friends but when alcohol affected one or both of you arguments, sometimes physical, developed.

On Melbourne Cup day 2009 both you and the deceased had consumed very large quantities of alcohol. You had finished work at about lunchtime the previous day and both of you had consumed alcohol during the afternoon and evening of Monday 2 November. At 9.30 a.m. on the Tuesday morning you were filmed purchasing a cask of wine and a stubby of beer from the IGA Supermarket in Cobram. The wine, it seems, was for Mr Reuter. Sometime later you attended first the Cobram Hotel and then the Grand Central leaving there at about 4.20 p.m. You were seen walking by Natalie McDonald in Punt Road, Cobram. She describes you as appearing drunk and stumbling as you walked. This was at 4.30 p.m.

It is clear that Mr Reuter, although not with you at the hotels, also consumed a very considerable quantity of alcohol on this day, its effects perhaps being cumulative upon the effects from his consumption on the Monday. A blood test taken post-mortem demonstrated upon analysis a blood alcohol concentration of 0.40ml/100 millitre. This is an extraordinarily high reading.

There is a paucity of direct evidence as to what actually happened at the Warkil Street House. You must have arrived back there some time shortly after 4.30 p.m. At approximately 6.00 p.m. a neighbour Marcus Diaco heard you saying “if you fucking do that again I will stab you in the neck.” Another neighbour heard arguing and raised voices. At 7.16 p.m. your friend Louise Semmell telephoned you from Launceston. You sounded drunk and Ms Semmell did not take you seriously when you told her you had killed Mr Reuter. You were ‘heavily affected by alcohol” at 9.53 p.m. when observed in a police interview room by Detective Senior Constable Prestage of the Cobram Police. Your condition was such that you were not formally interviewed until the next morning. Your taped responses to Senior Constable Pert at the scene demonstrated considerable apparent alcohol related confusion. Your answers…

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 Boshevski

Details

AGLC: R v Boshevski [2011] VSC 303
Case: [2011] VSC 303
Decision Date: 29 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Boshevski involves a defendant who pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary issue was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given his plea of guilty, his expression of substantial remorse, his history of alcoholism, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court was required to balance these factors against the severity of the crime committed.

The legal issues centred around the principles of sentencing in murder cases, the impact of remorse, the role of personal circumstances such as alcoholism, and the potential for rehabilitation. The defence argued for a sentence that reflected the defendant’s remorse and the prospects of rehabilitation, while the prosecution emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence. The court had to determine the weight to be given to each of these factors in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

The court, in its judgment, considered the substantial remorse expressed by the defendant, which was evident from his actions and demeanour. It also took into account his history of alcoholism, which was relevant to understanding his background and circumstances. Additionally, the court evaluated the reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, including the defendant's potential to lead a law-abiding life. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence should reflect both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating circumstances presented. The court ultimately determined the appropriate sentence, balancing these considerations to ensure justice was served.

Orders