R v Gazdovic - [2002] VSC 588

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1545 of 2002

THE QUEEN

MARIA GAZDOVIC

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 December 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 December 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Maria Gazdovic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 588

---

Sentence – Manslaughter - Plea of guilty – Killing with saucepan and walking stick of domineering and abusive husband of nearly 50 years – Marginally excessive self defence – Release on 2 year undertaking under s.72 of Sentencing Act 1991

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kayser	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms N Gobbo	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Maria Gadzovic, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On 19 October 2001, you killed your husband Anton. You had been married to him for nearly 50 years.

You and the deceased were born nearly seventy years ago. You were both raised in a village in Croatia. When you were 19, you chose to marry him, despite being warned against doing so by your family. He started abusing you and beating you three days after you were married. The abuse and the beatings were to continue for nearly 50 years. He told you often that he would kill you. The two of you fled from Croatia to Italy in the late 1950’s. There, you gave birth to the only child of the marriage, a son. Shortly after that, the three of you came to Australia. You and the deceased worked hard here. You raised your son. You were eventually able to acquire your own home in Cambellfield. Until your son left home, the deceased physically and verbally abused your son as he did you. He isolated you from contact with family and friends. He controlled all aspects of your life. You were his slave. As an aspect of maintaining his control over you, he kept guns on hand in the house.

Circumstances changed in the last few years. That seems to have been mainly because you and the deceased had problems with illness. In 1998, you had to go to hospital for an operation. The deceased showed no sympathy for your needs at that time. He insisted that his needs be met. For some months after coming out of hospital you went back to being his slave. Then, you summoned up the courage to leave him. You moved in with your son and his family, despite that you found being there embarrassing. You also had the courage to report the presence of the deceased’s guns to the police. The police came and took the guns away. It was not long before the deceased was urging you to return to him. He promised not to beat you. You went back to him. He went back to beating you and abusing you as before. Deprived of his guns, he needed another means of intimidating you. He brought an axe into the…

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 Gazdovic

Details

AGLC: R v Gazdovic [2002] VSC 588
Case: [2002] VSC 588
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gazdovic, the defendant, Mrs Gazdovic, was charged with manslaughter following the death of her husband. The dispute centred on the defendant's plea of guilty to manslaughter, arguing that her actions were a response to years of abuse and domination by her husband. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Mrs Gazdovic, considering her plea of guilty and the context of the killing. The central legal issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted marginally excessive self-defence, which would reduce the severity of her sentence. The court also had to consider the statutory provisions regarding the sentencing of offenders under the Sentencing Act 1991.

The court found that the defendant's actions were indeed a response to prolonged and severe abuse, and thus constituted marginally excessive self-defence. The judge took into account the significant psychological impact of the husband's domination, the lack of other viable options for the defendant, and the immediacy of the threat. As a result, the court decided to release Mrs Gazdovic on a two-year undertaking under section 72 of the Sentencing Act 1991, allowing her conditional release into the community. This decision reflected the court's recognition of the complex circumstances surrounding the case and the need for a sentence that balanced justice and rehabilitation.

Orders