R v Levy - [2018] VSC 567

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0146

THE QUEEN
v
CRAIG JONATHON LEVY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 September 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Levy
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 567

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty - Co-operation with authorities and undertaking to give evidence – Parity – Seven years six months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of four years six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Mr J Cain, Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M Tittensor	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Craig Jonathon Levy, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Ramis Jonuzi on 25 October 2017. The killing took place at premises at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East, in which Mr Jonuzi was residing at the time with you and two other men. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years. You have also admitted prior convictions contained in a criminal record filed in this matter.

Ramis Jonuzi

Mr Jonuzi was 36 years old at the time of his death. He was the only son of Qemal and Nevrije Jonuzi and had three sisters named Lindita, Naime and Afradita. He had worked principally as a bricklayer during his working life. After the end of an eight year relationship with Andrew Ross, Mr Jonuzi returned to live with his parents in Tarneit in June 2017. He confided in his sister Naime that he had issues with drug use. She took him to seek medical help.

Circumstances leading up to the crime

You and a man named Ryan Smart had resided at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East since 2011. You and Smart had rented the premises from a man named Bryce Gaton, a friend of your father, and you were in charge of receiving rent from the other tenants and then paying the rent due to Mr Gaton. As of the day of Mr Jonuzi’s death, rent was in arrears by $604. Gaton had served a notice to quit on you and Smart due to unpaid rent and ongoing breaches of the rental agreement.

A third person named Jason Colton (‘Colton’) had resided at the premises for some months leading up to 25 October 2017. He lived in the garage at the property.

You and Smart occupied separate bedrooms in the house. A third bedroom inside the house was placed by you on Airbnb. In October 2017, Mr Jonuzi moved out of his parents’ home and commenced employment at a restaurant. On 11 October 2017 he confided in a friend that he was not going very well, was sleeping in his car, and needed to find accommodation. The friend helped him to find a place to stay through Airbnb. A booking was made for Mr Jonuzi to stay at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East for the period 15…

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 Levy

Details

AGLC: R v Levy [2018] VSC 567
Case: [2018] VSC 567
Decision Date: 26 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Levy involved the respondent, Levy, who was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the principles of parity and the respondent's cooperation with the authorities.

The court considered the principles of parity, which require that sentences for similar crimes be consistent, and the respondent's cooperation, which included a plea of guilty and a promise to give evidence. The Supreme Court had imposed a sentence of seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The High Court found that the sentence was excessive given the principles of parity and the respondent's cooperation. The court highlighted that the sentence was significantly higher than sentences imposed in similar cases, and that the respondent's cooperation should have been given greater weight.

After reviewing the sentence and considering the principles of parity and the respondent's cooperation, the High Court determined that the sentence was inappropriate. The court reduced the sentence to six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with similar cases, while also recognising the value of cooperation from the accused. The final orders of the court reflected this determination, adjusting the sentence to align with the principles of justice and consistency.

Orders