R v Costa - [2017] VSC 208

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0106

THE QUEEN
v
TULLY COSTA	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27 February, 11 April 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Costa
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 208

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Intentionally cause serious injury – Mental illness – Verdins principles, whether applicable – Voluntary cessation of medication – Schizophrenia – Offender under the influence of alcohol, methamphetamine at the time of the index offence – Whether moral culpability reduced – Previous example of offending whilst abstaining from medication and consuming drugs and alcohol – Significant criminal history - Prospects of rehabilitation limited – Remorse – Section 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. Brown	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Kilduff	Chris McLennan & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Tully Costa, on 2 February 2017 in this Court you pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury. That charge concerns your actions in stabbing Cassia Stephens multiple times at your South Yarra flat on 20 January 2016.

The maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this offence.

On 20 January 2016, you were living in Unit No 185/1 Surrey Road, South Yarra, which is a high rise Housing Commission complex. Your unit was on the 8^th floor. At the time of this offence you were 40 years of age, unemployed and suffering from the mental illness of schizophrenia. You first presented to psychiatric services with psychotic symptoms in 1996 at the age of 22. Since then, you have been admitted as a psychiatric inpatient on many occasions to various psychiatric services, including to the Alfred Hospital.

At the time of committing this offence Cassia Stephens was aged 37, was unemployed and also homeless. She also suffered from schizophrenia and had also been treated for that illness at the Alfred Hospital.

On the day of the offence you were observed by other residents on the 8^th floor of the apartment block to be acting erratically. At about 5.30pm on that day, you knocked on the door of Amie Slavin at Unit 88 and, when she opened the door, asked her if she had any drugs. She closed the door and, as she locked it, she heard you say ‘I need a good fucking’.

Next, you were heard knocking on the door of Caine Peterson at Unit No. 86 and, when he opened his door, you yelled at him that you were going to get him. At that stage Peterson saw a red knife in your hand and told you to go away and get some medical attention. You threatened to burn him out and tried to light a cardboard box, which was near the front door, with a…

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 Costa

Details

AGLC: R v Costa [2017] VSC 208
Case: [2017] VSC 208
Decision Date: 21 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Costa involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury. The defendant, who suffered from schizophrenia, had voluntarily ceased taking his prescribed medication prior to committing the offence. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The case centred on the principles of sentencing for a guilty plea, particularly in light of the defendant's mental health condition, voluntary cessation of medication, and influence of alcohol and methamphetamine at the time of the offence. The court had to determine whether these factors warranted a reduction in the defendant's moral culpability and if the Verdins principles should apply.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's mental illness, voluntary cessation of medication, and the influence of alcohol and methamphetamine at the time of the offence warranted a reduction in his moral culpability. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of Verdins principles and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court also needed to weigh the defendant's significant criminal history and the presence of remorse in determining the appropriate sentence.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the defendant's schizophrenia and the impact of his voluntary cessation of medication on his mental state at the time of the offence. The court found that the defendant's mental illness did not absolve him of moral responsibility, as he had a previous history of offending while abstaining from medication and consuming drugs and alcohol. The court also considered the defendant's significant criminal history and limited prospects of rehabilitation. However, the court did acknowledge the defendant's remorse, which was a mitigating factor in sentencing. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant's moral culpability was not significantly reduced, and sentenced him in accordance with section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a correctional centre for a specified period, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's significant criminal history, and the need for community protection. The court also ordered that the defendant receive appropriate treatment for his mental health condition during his period of detention.

Orders