R v Camilleri - [2013] VSC 676

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0081

THE QUEEN

LESLIE CAMILLERI

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4-7 February 2013, 27 May 2013, 4-5 June 2013, 23 September 2013 and 21 November 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Camilleri
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 676

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder of a 13-year-old girl – Plea of guilty – Disputed facts as to the circumstances – Prisoner acting in concert with others – Body of victim never located – Criminality of a very high order – Serious violent offender – 28 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with two life sentences prisoner is currently undergoing – Pursuant to Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 11 non-parole period not ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Kelly	Leanne Warren & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Leslie Camilleri, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Prudence Ann Bird and have admitted prior convictions.

The Crown contend that: you took Prue Bird from her home on Sunday 2 February 1992 and did so with Mark McConville and one other; that Prue Bird was held captive in a shed for a period of time; she was likely to have been sexually assaulted; and was later murdered by you or you and McConville some time between 2 February and 11 February 1992.

You contend that you acted alone, that you came upon Prue Bird as she walked along the street past a school or park. You grabbed her around the neck, closing off her windpipe, put her into the back seat of the car face down and at some point tied her hands and feet with electrical cables. You said you drove around for two to three hours, and when you spoke with her, she did not answer. It was then that you realised Prue was dead.

On your own account, you abducted Prue Bird and, by your plea, you acknowledge that you murdered her. By your plea of guilty, you are taken to have admitted all of the elements of the crime of murder. Your counsel, Mr Kelly, submitted that your actions, as you describe them, are consistent with an intention to cause really serious injury to Prue Bird.

Clearly, the facts and circumstances surrounding Prue Bird’s murder are in dispute. The Crown submit that this was a murder that involved planning and acting in concert with others and, as such, being a premeditated crime, is a more serious example of the crime of murder than if it were the spontaneous, random act involving you acting alone, as you contend.

The Crown further submit that your account is fanciful and, because you contend that Prue Bird’s death was an accident, inconsistent with your plea of guilty to murder.

Insofar as it is contended that you were acting with…

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 Camilleri

Details

AGLC: R v Camilleri [2013] VSC 676
Case: [2013] VSC 676
Decision Date: 5 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Camilleri, the defendant pleaded guilty to the murder of a 13-year-old girl. The circumstances of the crime were disputed, with the victim's body never located. The accused was one of several individuals involved in the act, leading to complex questions regarding individual culpability. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the sentencing implications of the plea and the nature of the crime were to be determined.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for a crime of such gravity, given the plea of guilty and the absence of the victim's body. Further, the court had to consider the role of the accused within the group and the cumulative criminality of all participants. The court also had to address the applicability of the non-parole period under section 11 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), given the concurrent sentences Camilleri was already serving.

The court, in delivering its judgment, noted the heinous nature of the crime, emphasising the need for a sentence that reflected the severity of the act. It considered Camilleri's prior criminal record and the high degree of premeditation and violence involved in the murder. The court found that a 28-year imprisonment term was appropriate, to be served concurrently with the two life sentences Camilleri was already serving. In light of the existing sentences, the court did not deem it necessary to impose a separate non-parole period.

The final orders of the court were that Camilleri would serve an additional 28 years in prison, to run concurrently with his existing sentences, without a separate non-parole period being imposed. The judgment underscored the court's approach to sentencing in cases where the offender has already been serving significant prison terms for other serious offences.

Orders