R v Gojanovic - [2002] VSC 467

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1494 of 2001

THE QUEEN

DENIS PAUL GOJANOVIC

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 AUGUST 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 SEPTEMBER 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. GOJANOVIC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 467

---

SENTENCE – Murder – Victim former de facto wife – Offender concerned to obtain custody of child of union – Intrusion into victim's home – Violent and sustained attack – No remorse – Importance of general deterrence – 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J. Leckie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. A. Lewis	Michael Brugman & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

I will make the orders that were sought on the last occasion, the forensic sample order was by consent, and I make that order. I also make the disposal order subject to the caveat that Mr Lewis placed on it at the time.

MR LECKIE: Thank you, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Denis Paul Gojanovic, having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Angela Farnsworth at Belmont on 12 March 2001, it is now my responsibility to sentence you.

In determining the appropriate sentence it is necessary to canvass the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence. You met Angela Farnsworth in 1995. At that time Ms Farnsworth had three children aged between six and two from two previous marriages. You lived together at a number of addresses including Corio, Newcomb, St Leonards, Herne Hill and Pavo Street, Belmont. In October 1998, when you were living at Herne Hill, a child Nicholas was born from your association. In September 2000, one of the children from Angela's marriage to Mark Farnsworth returned to live with his father. In October 2000, Ms Farnsworth rented a property at 68 Pavo Street, Belmont where you stayed from time to time but you were not residing there at the time of Ms Farnsworth' s death.

During 2000, your relationship with Ms Farnsworth was deteriorating. On the evidence the family experienced constant financial difficulties. Your own income was derived from part-time work as a music teacher, a short stint as a courier, and the infrequent engagements of a band in which you played the guitar. The family income was augmented by government assistance and maintenance, however, the financial situations was exacerbated by Ms Farnsworth's addiction to gambling on poker machines. One manifestation of the financial problems was the family's eviction from Herne Hill because of arrears of rent.

Efforts have been made over time by Ms Farnsworth's brother, Mr Chris Denmead, to assist the family in its financial management. These efforts proved largely unsuccessful.

Apart from financial problems, Ms Farnsworth had health problems. For example she was on medication to compensate for the removal of her thyroid and to treat a panic disorder from which she suffered.

There was a considerable act of evidence…

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 [2002] VSC 467
Case: [2002] VSC 467
Decision Date: 19 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gojanovic, the defendant was convicted of the murder of his former de facto wife. The relationship between the parties was marked by significant conflict, particularly regarding custody of their child. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, who had a history of domestic violence, broke into the victim's home and carried out a violent and sustained attack, resulting in her death. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the brutal nature of the crime, the lack of remorse shown, and the importance of general deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for a murder committed under these circumstances. The court had to weigh the severity and brutality of the crime, the defendant's history of domestic violence, and his lack of remorse. The court also considered the importance of general deterrence, given the potential impact of the sentence on preventing similar crimes in the future. In delivering the sentence, the court emphasised the need to protect the community and to send a strong message about the gravity of such violent acts.

The court found that the circumstances of the murder warranted a severe penalty. The defendant's premeditated and violent attack, his history of domestic violence, and his lack of remorse were significant aggravating factors. The court noted that the defendant's actions demonstrated a complete disregard for human life, and that the need for general deterrence was particularly strong given the domestic nature of the crime. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 20 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.

Orders