R v Felicite - [2010] VSC 245

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 54 of 2010

THE QUEEN

RON FELICITE

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 May 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 June 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Felicite
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 245	Revised 8 June 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Spousal relationship.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C Barbagallo	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G A Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Felicite you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Marie Juliette Felicite on 30 August 2009. At shortly before 2.00pm on that day you followed your wife into the kitchen of your unit. There you selected two knives from a knife block. One of them you described in your interview with police as “the biggest knife I could find”. You then set about attacking your wife with appalling brutality, stabbing her time after time in her neck/throat region. Twelve separate incised defects were noted to the anterior cervical spine, as were multiple incised injuries to her hands; evidence that she endeavoured to defend herself from your attack. Her last seconds of life cannot be adequately described by the spoken word. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least part of your attack upon your wife was viewed by your four-year-old son Ronan.

You were born in Australia. You were married to the deceased who was known as Juliette in 2004. You had met approximately one year earlier in Rodrigues, your parents’ place of birth. You returned to Australia with Juliette after marrying in Rodrigues and initially you lived together with your parents. After a time you moved out and after several changes of address you settled in Unit 14, 52 Victoria Road Narre Warren.

You were married when you were 21 and Juliette was 22. Your son was born in July 2005. You have maintained steady employment, most recently as a storeman. Your relationship, however, at times has been characterised by your incapacity to control your anger. In your interview with police you admitted threatening to kill your wife in 2007, apparently as a result of her talking on the phone at the cinema. Police were called and an Interim Intervention Order was granted, although your wife did not pursue a full Order.

Dr Sullivan is a Forensic Psychiatrist engaged on your behalf. You described to him developing problems with managing your anger. In approximately 2004 you and your wife visited Rodrigues. You inflicted slashing injuries upon yourself, and your parents-in-law eventually ejected you because of recurrent arguing necessitating police intervention. From Rodrigues you moved with your wife to Mauritius, but were again ejected. You punched and broke a glass window at a house where you were staying and were apparently ejected for arguing with your wife’s relatives. From there you moved to Perth where once more you were asked to leave by…

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 Felicite

Details

AGLC: R v Felicite [2010] VSC 245
Case: [2010] VSC 245
Decision Date: 8 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Felicite involved the defendant, Felicite, who was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was Felicite's involvement in the death of his spouse, with the primary issue being the appropriate sentence for the crime. Felicite had been charged and subsequently convicted of murdering his spouse in a case that had significant emotional and legal ramifications. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the unique circumstances of the spousal relationship and the nature of the crime committed.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the appropriate penalty for murder, particularly considering the mitigating factors related to the spousal relationship. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with any mitigating circumstances that could influence the sentence. Key considerations included the nature of the relationship between Felicite and his spouse, any history of domestic violence or other factors that might be seen as mitigating the culpability of the defendant. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, while also adhering to the principles of justice and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court, in delivering its judgment, meticulously evaluated the evidence and submissions regarding the relationship dynamics and the specific circumstances of the murder. It concluded that while the crime was heinous, the mitigating factors related to the spousal relationship warranted a degree of leniency in the sentencing. The court recognised the complex interplay between personal circumstances and the act of murder, and decided to impose a sentence that was severe but also reflective of the unique aspects of the case. The final orders included a custodial sentence that was less than the maximum penalty for murder, acknowledging the mitigating factors while maintaining the seriousness of the offence.

Orders