R v Gojanovic - [2005] VSC 97

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1494 of 2001

THE QUEEN

DENIS PAUL GOJANOVIC

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	GEELONG
DATE OF HEARING:	9-11, 14-18, 21-25, 28 FEBRUARY; 4, 7-9, 15-19 and 21-24 MARCH 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 APRIL 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v GOJANOVIC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 97

---

Murder – Sentence – Domestic killing – Hypoglycaemia - General deterrence – Retrial.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr B. Lindner	Brugman Mellas

HIS HONOUR:

Denis Paul Gojanovic, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Angela Farnsworth at Belmont on 12 March 2001.

The murder of Ms Farnsworth occurred in the context of the breakdown of a personal relationship between the two of you. After some years living together in what was described as an 'on and off relationship' and increasing difficulties in that relationship you separated. Ms Farnsworth was living at Pavo Street, Belmont with three of her children including the son you had together, Nicholas, who was then 2½ years old. You wanted to assume the role of primary carer for Nicholas and that week refused to return Nicholas to his mother in accordance with agreed access arrangements.

On Sunday 11 March 2001 at approximately 9.00 p.m. you left your sister's home in St Leonards and having told your sister you were going fishing, in fact went looking for the deceased. Ms Farnsworth was at that time in the Lord of the Isles Hotel in Geelong. A series of phone calls made by you from your mobile phone demonstrate that you were in the general area of that hotel from approximately 10.30 p.m. onwards. Ms Farnsworth left the hotel at 3.45 a.m. and was walked to her car by a hotel staff member. She then drove to her home in Pavo Street, Belmont.

The overwhelming probability is that you followed her home but it is possible that you had driven to her house in anticipation of her return at about this time. In any event, you parked your car around the corner from her home in the next street and shortly after she had returned home you entered the house.

Precisely what then occurred is known only to you. You assert in your record of interview that there was an argument. The deceased asked you to get out, she threatened to call the police and she told you emphatically that she would not give up custody of Nicholas to you.

Your response was to attack her in a vicious, determined and brutal fashion.

Despite a significant advantage in size and weight you were not content to grapple with her, although you asserted to police that there was an initial wrestle.

Whether or not this is true, it is apparent not only from your admissions to police but also from the circumstantial…

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 Gojanovic

Details

AGLC: R v Gojanovic [2005] VSC 97
Case: [2005] VSC 97
Decision Date: 6 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Gojanovic, appealed against his sentence for the murder of his wife, Ms Zivanovic. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the appellant's hypoglycaemia condition when assessing his culpability and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in his assessment of the appellant's culpability, as the evidence did not establish that the appellant's hypoglycaemia played a significant role in his actions. The Court further held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of general deterrence and the need to protect society in imposing a life sentence. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant. The orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed and the sentence of life imprisonment be upheld.

Orders