JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Wangaratta
DATES OF HEARING:	21 & 22 August 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 August 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cardamone
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 493

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder - Incitement to murder – Pleas of guilty – Victim abducted and tortured – Prisoner on the sex offender register – Offences committed whilst on parole - Remorse – Subjective and objective elements - Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Serious violent offender – Community protection – Sentence of life imprisonment - Non-parole period – Considerations in fixing – Minimum term – Declined – Prisoner sentenced to life without parole - Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 6F and 11.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Silbert QC with Ms J Warren	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Tehan QC with Ms K Blair	Patrick W Dwyer

HIS HONOUR:

Michael Cardamone, on 30 June 2017 you pleaded guilty in this Court, sitting at Melbourne, to the following charges:

1.Murder of Karen Maria Chetcuti on 12 January 2016;
2.Incitement to murder the prosecution witness Edward George between 22 February 2017 and 30 March 2017;

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for incitement to murder is also life imprisonment.

There is also a related summary offence of breaching a prescribed condition of your parole order, by murdering Karen Maria Chetcuti. Your counsel informed me that you plead guilty to that offence.

On Monday 21 August and Tuesday 22 August 2017 in Wangaratta, I heard an opening of the prosecution case from the Chief Crown Prosecutor, Mr Silbert QC, who appeared with Ms Warren of counsel. I also heard the presentation of thirteen victim impact statements which the Court received as exhibits. Some of those statements were read to the Court and in one case by the deponent. In addition, I heard detailed submissions on the sentence to be imposed from Mr Tehan QC, who with Ms Blair of counsel appeared on your behalf. I also heard a response to those submissions from Mr Silbert.

Having considered all of that material it is now my duty to sentence you for these offences.

You murdered Karen Chetcuti in the early hours of 13 January 2016 in a remote location near Lake Buffalo. According to the prosecution case the likely motive for your crime was connected with a sexual interest they allege you had in Ms Chetcuti. You have never given a truthful account of what occurred. In some respects, whether that was your motivation or not is of little consequence. I believed I had ceased to be amazed at the level of violence that some men are capable of inflicting on defenceless women, but what you did to Karen Chetcuti over a number of hours and for no apparent or logical…

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 Cardamone

Details

AGLC: R v Cardamone [2017] VSC 493
Case: [2017] VSC 493
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Cardamone and his co-offenders, were charged with the murder of a victim who was abducted and tortured. Both Cardamone and his co-offenders pleaded guilty to the charges. The respondents faced the Supreme Court of Victoria where they were sentenced for their involvement in the murder. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Cardamone, considering the nature of the crime, the level of his involvement, and the various sentencing principles that applied.

The key legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Cardamone, the relevance of remorse in sentencing, and the setting of a non-parole period. The court was required to balance the objective and subjective elements of sentencing, particularly the seriousness of the crime, Cardamone's level of involvement, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact of Cardamone's prior criminal history, his status as a registered sex offender, and the fact that the offence was committed while he was on parole.

The court found that Cardamone's role in the crime was significant, involving substantial planning and coordination with his co-offenders. Despite his guilty plea, the court found limited evidence of genuine remorse. The court considered the gravity of the offence, Cardamone's poor prospects for rehabilitation, and the need for community protection. Given these factors, the court determined that Cardamone should be sentenced to life imprisonment. The court further concluded that a non-parole period should not be set, and Cardamone was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

No appeal was lodged against the sentence. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the full context of an offender's criminal history and the severity of the crime in determining an appropriate sentence. The court's decision also emphasises the role of remorse and rehabilitation prospects in sentencing, as well as the need for community protection in cases of serious violent crime.

Orders