R v Favata
[2004] VSC 8
•23 January 2004
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1464 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| V |
| LORENZO FAVATA |
---
JUDGE: | Teague J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 September - 20 October, 28 October 2003 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 23 January 2004 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Lorenzo Favata | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2004] VSC 8 | |
---
Criminal Law - Sentencing - – Murder – planned burglary victim recognised burglar - burglar then murdered victim – 21 years imprisonment – 16 years non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr B. Kayser | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr L. Hartnett | Patrick D Dwyer |
HIS HONOUR:
Lorenzo Favata, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Samuel Macumber in March 1999. You had met only briefly before you murdered him. For many years, he had lived alone in a house at Clayton. You came to know him through your brother-in-law, Stephen Morison, who had known him for some years.
Samuel Macumber was not a wealthy man, but he was generous. Stephen Morison had borrowed from him. Regrettably, Stephen Morison had also taken to stealing small amounts of cash from him. Stephen Morison told you of those thefts. The loans and the thefts were signs that Samuel Macumber was not one to closely monitor his money. There were other pointers to the likelihood that Samuel Macumber kept cash at his home. On Saturday 26 March 1999, Stephen Morison took you to that home. That gave you the chance to check Samuel Macumber out in his home. You decided that he would make a good target for a burglary. He was in his 50’s. He was the more vulnerable because he lived alone. You planned to carry out a burglary at his home.
You prepared to do so very carefully in the early hours of Thursday 31 March 1999, just prior to Easter. You put on overalls and an old pair of boots. You took with you some gloves, a balaclava and a small crowbar. You stole a car to get you to the home of Samuel Macumber. You parked the car in the side street. You put on the balaclava and gloves and took up the crowbar. Samuel Macumber chose to open the front door to you. An alert and careful man would scarcely have done so. Once the door was open, you took control of the situation. You demanded to know where he kept his money. At that stage, he made a bad mistake. It was to be a fatal mistake. He said that he recognised your voice. You had to make a choice. You could have ignored what he said, and taken the risk of his giving evidence against you, which would carry a significant risk of leading to your going to prison. You chose to eliminate that risk. You chose to kill the deceased.
You hit him with your crowbar. You stabbed him with knives that were on hand. The hitting and stabbing took place in more than one location. Initially it was near the front door. Later it was in the back hall, to where you had dragged him. Having killed him, you searched for his cash. You found a few thousand dollars. You took that away with you. You also took away the crowbar. You left the knives. You drove off in the stolen car. You abandoned the car a kilometre or so away from your home. You walked home. A day or so later, you disposed of the clothes, the boots, the gloves, the balaclava and the crowbar. They were dumped at a local tip with a load of old concrete.
For a long time, you kept quiet as to what had happened. When interviewed by Homicide Squad police, you relied on an alibi. You claimed that you were home in bed with your wife at the relevant time. She supported you in that claim. More than two years later, you chose to tell a very different story to two men, whom you thought to be criminals. You provided to those two men an account, a reliable account, of how you had killed the deceased. You were not aware at that time that what you were saying to the two men was being recorded.
I have read the victim impact statements prepared by or on behalf of the mother, stepfather, brother, sister-in-law and partner of the deceased. Those statements clearly took much time to think about and write. They are eloquent. They are moving. They reveal a great deal of pain. They also reflect the additional pain and sorrow that arises where a conviction comes only years after a murder. I treat them as an important balancing aspect of the sentencing process.
You are 35 years of age, having been born in June 1968. Your background is detailed in the report, tendered on the plea, of the psychologist Elizabeth Warren. You were raised in a supportive family, the second of three children. Other members of the family have not had problems with the law. You remained at school to the age of 16, getting to year 9. Getting that far was an achievement given the assessment made by Elizabeth Warren of your IQ. She also noted in you a disposition to look for the support and protection of others. As to that, you have been married for 8 years. While there have been ups and downs, and despite the amount of money you chose to waste on illegal drugs, that appears to have been a good marriage. The subject of your involvement with illegal drugs was also addressed in the report of Elizabeth Warren. The dependency on drugs clearly created a need for money. Such a need can readily lead to the making of a plan like yours to rob the deceased.
I have noted, as did Elizabeth Warren, that you have had a reasonable work history. On the other hand, you have had plenty of appearances before the courts. Although, it is a troubling record, it is not a really serious record. It is consistent with your having had a moderately serious drug problem. The record is not indicative of any propensity for violence. As to your prospects of rehabilitation, I cannot assess them as being any better than average. I cannot discern any indications of remorse. There are contra-indications of remorse and indeed indications of callousness in parts of the covertly recorded conversations. I do not weigh them against you. That is because the context of those statements was such as to warrant my treating them neutrally.
The murder by you of Samuel Macumber was a very serious example of a very serious crime. You acted totally out of self-interest. You went to his home with a premeditated plan to commit a very serious crime. You intended to rob him, because you wanted his money. You preyed on his vulnerability. Although you had not planned to kill him, you were quick to do so, when you saw a risk of your being caught out, which might lead to your serving a term in prison. Once you made the decision to kill him, you did so with a particular savagery.
I have signed the body sample retention order. I declare, and direct that it be recorded, that you have served 682 days of pre-sentence detention. I sentence you to twenty one years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of sixteen years.
0
0
0