R v Mamour - [2011] VSC 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0011 of 2011

THE QUEEN

LINO MAMOUR

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mamour
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 113

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Guilty plea at the earliest opportunity – Circumstances of offending – Previous good character - Stable background and employment history – High probability of adjustment disorder with depressed mood of moderate severity – Lack of insight into offending – Limited prospects of rehabilitation – Moderation of principles of general and specific deterrence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C. Gwynn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Dempsey	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Lino Mamour, on 14 February 2011 you pleaded guilty before me to the murder of your wife Juana at about 3.00pm on 24 August 2010.

The details of the murder come only from what you told Dr Sullivan[1] and from your counsel. You had said that on 24 August 2010 you had returned home from work, slept for a couple of hours and then attended a funeral and returned home. When you returned home, you say that your wife Juana told you not to sleep in the bed because she had slept with someone in it. You told Dr Sullivan that you treated that as a joke and you left the house for a while. When you returned, your mobile phone rang and nobody replied when you said “Hello” a number of times. You could, however, hear talking in Arabic and you suspected that they were the men who had been sleeping with Juana and think that it is possible your wife told you that. You told Dr Sullivan that “Juana told him that those men slept ‘with her and the baby’.” You then made a call to Juana’s mother in Sudan, but Juana stopped you. You told her to leave the flat but she refused. You went and bought a small bottle of whisky (probably a miniature bottle) which you drank in your car outside the flat. When you returned to the flat you were angry. You told Dr Sullivan that Juana pulled up a chair in front of her, told you to sit on it and said to you “If you are not a coward, kill me”. You then took a large (34cm) knife, which you had recently purchased, from a cupboard and it is your recollection that you stabbed her twice. She was in fact stabbed a number of times to the back and chest. Stab wounds to the thoracic aorta and the right ventricle to the heart were each capable of causing death. One of those injuries followed from the knife having passed through the sternum, which would have required a significant amount of force. Juana also suffered a number of defensive injuries.
[1]Dr Sullivan examined the accused on…

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 Mamour

Details

AGLC: R v Mamour [2011] VSC 113
Case: [2011] VSC 113
Decision Date: 28 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mamour, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant, represented by counsel, appealed against the length of his sentence. The nature of the dispute was the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the lower court in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included the relevance of the appellant's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, his stable background and employment history, and the high probability of him suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood of moderate severity. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's lack of insight into his offending, limited prospects of rehabilitation, and the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The court examined the mitigating factors presented, including the appellant's plea of guilty and his otherwise good character. However, the court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court found that, while the appellant's personal circumstances were relevant, they did not warrant a significant reduction in sentence. The court ultimately concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders