R v Carlino - [2025] NSWSC 480

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Carlino [2025] NSWSC 480
Hearing dates: 6 February 2025, 7 April 2025
Date of orders: 16 May 2025
Decision date: 16 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: McNaughton J
Decision:
Mr Carlino is sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years. The Court sets a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 23 July 2022, and an additional term of 6 years commencing on 23 July 2037 and ending on 22 July 2043.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentencing – murder – plea of guilty – domestic violence offence – where special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 5A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 44, 54A, 61

Cases Cited:
Goodbun v R [2002] NSWCCA 77
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
Williams v R [2022] NSWCCA 15

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Vincent Carlino (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Garrity (Crown)
T Quilter (Offender)
Solicitors:
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
A EL-Darwich, Macquarie Law Group (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00216379
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On Wednesday 20 July 2022, sometime between 7:19pm and 9:38pm, Ms Shereen Kumar was killed by Vincent Carlino in their home in Dural. Ms Kumar and Mr Carlino had been in an “on and off” relationship for approximately 17 months, and at the time of Ms Kumar’s death they were sharing a home. Ms Kumar was 43 years old, and Mr Carlino was 37 years old.
Mr Carlino pleaded guilty to one count of murder on 23 April 2024 in the Downing Centre Local Court and was committed to this Court for sentence. He adhered to his plea on 3 May 2024.
The sentence hearing was conducted over two part-days, on 6 February 2025 and 7 April 2025. It is now my duty to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr Carlino. The devastating effect of Ms Kumar’s murder on Ms Kumar’s family including her children will be discussed later in these reasons, but now I will turn to the applicable sentencing principles, the events of 20 July 2022, the circumstances leading up to, and following, those events, and Mr Carlino’s personal circumstances.
The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A). A life sentence must be imposed if the level of culpability involved in the commission of the offence was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community…

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 Carlino

Details

AGLC: R v Carlino [2025] NSWSC 480
Case: [2025] NSWSC 480
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Carlino, the High Court of Australia was presented with a sentencing appeal concerning a murder conviction. The appellant, having pleaded guilty to a domestic violence offence resulting in the death of his partner, sought to appeal his sentence. The case was brought before the court to consider whether the original sentence was appropriate given the special circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors and special circumstances of the case when sentencing the appellant. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating circumstances, which included the appellant's background, his remorse, and the coercive nature of the domestic violence situation. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to murder convictions, particularly focusing on the circumstances surrounding domestic violence. It was noted that the appellant had a history of domestic violence and had been the primary aggressor in the circumstances leading to the victim's death. However, the court also considered the appellant's remorse and the coercive and controlling environment in which the offence occurred. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to the special circumstances, particularly the coercive nature of the domestic violence situation. The court held that the original sentence was excessive and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with appropriate consideration of the mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the trial judge to re-sentence the appellant, taking into account the special circumstances of the case, including the coercive and controlling nature of the domestic violence situation, the appellant's background, and his remorse. The court emphasised the need for a balanced approach in sentencing that appropriately reflected both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders