R v Georgievski

[2003] VSC 158

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1503 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v

VANCHO GEORGIEVSKI

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 March & 3 April 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vancho Georgievski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 158

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Plea of guilty – Shotgun killing - alcohol – sentence of 16 years with non-parole period of 11 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J McArdle QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J Sutherland	C & H Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1. Vancho Georgievski, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Nove Gligoroski on 17 November 2001, at Deer Park.

1. You and the deceased had known each other for over 15 years.  Both of you were born in Macedonia, and later migrated to Australia.  Both at times had been engaged in work here, such as fruit picking.  Both of you were used to spending a lot of time drinking alcohol.  In November 2001, both of you were living in the same house in Irvine Street, Deer Park.  That came about primarily because of your charity.  You accepted that the deceased could stay for a time in the house that you were then renting.  He proved not to be an ideal lodger.  He acted at times in ways that you found particularly aggravating.  You suffered then, as now, from problems with your hearing.  Effectively, you needed to use a hearing aid, and a mobile phone.  The deceased knew that, but at times, chose to act to prevent you from doing so.  On 17 November, you had a particular concern, indeed obsession.  Your obsession was that he was responsible for taking from you your hearing aid, your mobile phone and some money.  As to whether he was to blame for that, evidence that I consider reliable is not available.  I mention one further matter.  At the house in Irvine Street, there was kept a loaded double barrelled shotgun.  As to how it came to be there, evidence that I consider reliable is not available.  You say the deceased brought it there.

1. As I have noted, you and the deceased were heavy drinkers of alcohol.  During 16 November 2001, you were drinking together at the Irvine Street house.  Around 10 p.m., the deceased left to go to the Macedonian Club.  You kept drinking alone for a time.  You then invited around to drink with you a friend named Dimko Stevanoski.  He was still there when, around 4 a.m., the deceased came in, having been driven home from the club.  As the deceased was leaving the club, he was seen to act somewhat aggressively to another departing club patron.  Once home, the deceased did not change his clothes.  He lay down on a lounge in the living room, put his head on a pillow and pulled a doona over him.

1. Dimko Stevanoski stayed there until close to daybreak the next morning.  After he left, you reflected on your concern that the deceased was responsible for your missing your hearing aid, your mobile phone and some money.  The deceased was lying on the lounge on his side.  Around 6.30 a.m., you took up the shotgun.  You placed the muzzle of the shotgun against the doona close to the deceased’s right shoulder and head.  You pulled the trigger twice.  You removed one spent cartridge.  You then left the shotgun on the lounge next to the deceased.

1. You went to the police station.  You did not go promptly, but only after about an hour and a half.  During that time, you made a visit to the home of your brother and mother, in St Albans.  You spoke to relatives of there being trouble.  You did not go into detail.

1. When you spoke to the police, you provided a story that was in a number of respects misleading.  I am satisfied, from other available evidence, that it was slanted so as to present a version of events more favourable to you; not only in detailing less activity by you after the shooting; but also in portraying more immediate and more serious aggravation by the deceased before the shooting.  Despite my rejection of some aspects of the spin you gave to your account, I do accept that you did not shoot the deceased in a calculated, premeditated way.

1. Your life has been dominated by alcohol.  I am satisfied that alcohol played a big part in your killing the deceased.  The fact that alcohol diminished your judgment is only  in a limited way a mitigating consideration.  Your blame would have been greater if you had been acting purposefully.  But you chose to drink to excess, and must face the consequences.  One consequence of a killing with murderous intent must be a long period of imprisonment.

1. I have read the statement prepared for the police by the estranged wife of the deceased.  He had three teenage children.  He kept in touch with them.  I have read the victim impact statement prepared by his second daughter.  She has written of the sadness, the disruption and the other ruinous consequences of his death for the family.

1. You are 52 years old, having been born in September 1950.  Details of your limited schooling and your working history are set out in the report of Patrick Newton, psychologist.  That report also provides particulars of your social alienation, your heavy drinking, and your health problems.  You have prior convictions, but they are of the kind linked to excessive drinking, not to a disposition to violence.

1. I allow for your plea of guilty, which facilitates the course of justice.  I accept that there are some indications of remorse, in the plea and in what you said to the police.  You have a supportive extended family.  I accept that there is scope for some guarded optimism as to rehabilitation.

1. You have served to today, 22 May 2003, 552 days by way of pre-sentence detention.   I direct that that be entered in the court records.  I impose a sentence of imprisonment of sixteen years.  I fix a non-parole period of eleven years.

---