R v Costa (No 2) - [2015] ACTSC 375

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Costa (No 2)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 375
Hearing Dates:	17 September, 2 December 2015
DecisionDate:	3 December 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW –Sentence – particular offences – murder – mental impairment – intoxication – aged offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 12 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) ss 288(b), 293 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33
Cases Cited:	Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 R v Massey (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Gray J, 28 July 2011) R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102 R v Vojneski (No 4) [2014] ACTSC 307 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luigi Costa (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Drumgold (Crown) Mr R van de Wiel QC with Mr I Bradfield (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Lynch Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 240 of 2012

MURRELL CJ:

The offender was charged with the offence that on 22 July 2012 at Canberra he murdered Terence John Freebody contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT). The offender pleaded that he was not guilty by reason of mental impairment. He was tried by a jury in March and April 2015. On 14 April 2015, the jury found the offender guilty of murder.

The maximum available penalty is life imprisonment; that penalty is reserved for the worst category of case.

The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 22 July 2012 and the sentence should commence on that date.

The Offence

The deceased was 89 years old. He suffered from dementia; he was withdrawn and had a poor memory. He required hearing aids, without which he was largely deaf. He had difficulty with mobility and was at risk of falling. If he fell, he could not stand up unaided. He was cared for by his wife, upon whom he was emotionally and physically dependent. The deceased was well known in the Canberra district. He had made a significant contribution to the local community. In his youth, he was an eminent sportsman, he was a World War Two veteran, and he had been a well-known businessman. He had strong family and community links.

The offender had been a neighbour of the deceased and his wife for about 15 years. The offender was a retired car salesman with significant assets who lived alone in a substantial residence.

Prior to July 2012, there had been little interaction between the parties, and there was no animosity between them. In return for a small favour performed by the deceased, the offender invited the deceased and his wife to come to the offender’s house for a drink on Sunday, 22 July 2012.

On the afternoon of 22 July 2012, the deceased and his wife attended the offender’s house. Over a period…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Costa (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 375
Case: [2015] ACTSC 375
Decision Date: 3 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Costa (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant, Costa, was charged with the murder of another individual. Costa had a history of mental impairment and had consumed alcohol at the time of the offence. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's mental state and intoxication, as well as his age.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Costa, taking into account his mental impairment and the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. It was necessary to consider the principles of sentencing for murder and the impact of intoxication on the defendant's culpability. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of Costa's age and mental state on the severity of the sentence.

The Supreme Court considered the mitigating factors of Costa's mental impairment and intoxication, as well as the aggravating factor of the gravity of the offence. The court found that, despite these factors, the circumstances warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also noted that the non-parole period should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Costa to 16 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. This decision balanced the mitigating factors with the need to uphold public safety and confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.