R v Hettiarachchi - [2007] VSC 541

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1400 of 2007

THE QUEEN

SARATH LAKSHMAN HETTIARACHCHI

---

JUDGE:	KING, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v. Hettiarachchi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 541

---

Double Murder – elderly parents in law visiting from overseas – sentenced to 22 years each count – 5 years cumulative. Total 27 years’ imprisonment – minimum 22 years before parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M.H. Tinney S.C.	Department of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Tyrrell	Haines & Polites

HER HONOUR:

Sarath Laksham Hettiarachchi, you have been convicted by a jury of two counts of murder, after a trial occupying 14 sitting days. You were found guilty of the murder of your parents-in-law, Samuel Perera and Iranganie Perera. You are now aged 47 years, having been born on 30 January 1960 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

The deceased in this case were, as I said, the parents of your wife. They had arrived in Australia from Sri Lanka on 22 February 2006 and were dead by 7 March 2006. They had come to Australia for a holiday and were planning on staying approximately two months, firstly to get to know their grandchildren and to spend time with their daughter. The holiday had been paid for by the siblings of your wife, as a present for your parents-in-law's 50th anniversary. They were both aged 76 at the time of their death. Mrs Perera had been a teacher and then a homemaker, and Mr Perera had retired some years earlier, after being employed as a clerk for many years.

Although there is a great deal of background, relating to your relationship with your wife, that is relevant and was led in the trial by consent, I will deal with that material subsequent to describing the circumstances of the actual murders.

On 6 March 2006 your wife, Badrakanthi Hettiarachchi, informed you that she was going to leave you, to which you indicated that if she did, she could take your daughter, but she would have to leave your son. The son was Ryan, aged about five. Your daughter, Rosie, was aged then about four months. You also informed her that the majority of the house was yours and that she would get only a small percentage of it's worth.

On that same day, while you were elsewhere with your son, she together with her daughter and her parents went to the Dandenong Magistrates' Court. After speaking to a Registrar at the court. she was listed for a hearing and an intervention order was granted by the magistrate. An exclusion order had been sought to enable your wife, your two children and her parents to remain in the house that you jointly owned. But the order from the Magistrates' Court did not in fact grant an exclusion order. The terms of the order…

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 Hettiarachchi

Details

AGLC: R v Hettiarachchi [2007] VSC 541
Case: [2007] VSC 541
Decision Date: 14 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hettiarachchi, the accused was found guilty of the murder of his elderly parents-in-law, who were visiting from overseas. The court sentenced him to 22 years for each count of murder, with an additional 5 years for the cumulative effect of the crimes, resulting in a total of 27 years’ imprisonment. The minimum term before parole eligibility was set at 22 years. The accused appealed against both the sentence and the length of the minimum term before parole eligibility.
The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the primary judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the personal characteristics of the accused, including his age, background, and remorse, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The appeal also contested the length of the minimum term before parole eligibility, arguing it was too severe given the personal circumstances.

The court found that the primary judge had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors, including the accused's background and remorse, but had also properly considered the gravity of the crimes. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive, and accordingly dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court further found that the minimum term before parole eligibility was appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The appeal against the minimum term was also dismissed.

Orders