R v Maretas

[2003] VSC 159

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1449 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v

JIMMY MARETAS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 February & 1 April 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Jimmy Maretas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 159

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Stabbing in fight between teenagers – Sentence of 7 years with non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC     and Mr R Elston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Hartnett	Robertson Ramsay & Waites

HIS HONOUR:

1. Jimmy Maretas.  You have pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter arising out of the killing on 8 June 2001 of Hassan Hassan.

1. You and the deceased had known each other for some years.  He was a little over a year younger than you.  Both of you had attended the same school for a time.  At one stage, the two of you had had a dispute over a gold chain.  That left you with some resentment towards him.  In June 2001, he mixed with a group of young men, known to you as the Southland boys.  You mixed with a group of young men with closely cropped hair.

1. On the night of 8 June 2001, there was a party at a house in Beach Road Mordialloc.  Opposite that house there are parklands between the road and the beach.  Those parklands extend for some hundreds of metres.  The party was attended by the deceased and a number of his friends.  It was also attended by you and a number of your friends.  Before and at the party, you chose to consume more than a little alcohol and some illegal drugs.  The cocktail was one calculated to make you aggressive.  You went to the party looking for trouble.  The word was that you were looking for the deceased.  During the night, a friend of the deceased spoke to you.  He asked why you were at the party.  Your response was to produce a knife.  The enquirer backed off.

1. Somewhat later, still inside the house, you and the deceased came face to face.  There was an argument between the two of you.  It was agreed that the two of you would fight.  The two of you walked across Beach Road.  You were on the edge of the area of parkland opposite the house where the party was being held.  Some other young men went with you to the parkland area.  There, you subjected the deceased to a quick patdown body search.  Taking that action was suggestive of two things.  First, that he might have had a knife on him.  Secondly, that you did not have a knife on you.  The two of you walked off in a southerly direction, into the darkness.  In that direction, but more than 100 metres away, there are some toilets and nearby ti-tree.  It was not possible to see how far the two of you went.  The manner of your walking off was suggestive of a plan for a one on one fist fight.  After a short time, you walked back to join the group of young men.  You announced that you had won.  You asked who would be next to take you on.

1. What happened when you were with the deceased is not clear.  I am satisfied that both you and the deceased had knives hidden in your clothes, and that, when the two of you were out of sight of the others, you stabbed the deceased with your knife.  I am unable to make any finding as to what led up to that stabbing.  It is clear that there was only one wound.  That wound was to the lower chest of the deceased.  It ruptured a major blood vessel.  Death would have followed within a short time.

1. Given that there was only one blow, it is not difficult to accept that you did not intend to kill the deceased.  But you chose unwisely to go to a party looking for a fight.  You chose unwisely to do so at a time when your judgment was affected by drugs and alcohol.  In one sense, less criticism can be directed to someone who acts criminally when his judgment is impaired through drugs and alcohol, than to someone who so acts purposefully and with a clear head.  But you made the choice to impair your judgment.  You then chose to engage in a personal fight with a man towards whom you felt antagonism.  Most significantly, you chose to take a knife into the fight.  That was unlawful and it was dangerous.  Those choices resulted in your killing Hassan Hassan.   The punishment can only be a significant prison sentence.

1. I have read carefully the psychotherapist’s reports as to the effects that the death of the deceased have had on his parents and on his seven siblings.  It is clear that those effects have been devastating.  It is likely that they will be ongoing.  Their pain, their loss, must be weighed in the balance when considering the appropriate punishment for you.

1. You were born in April 1983, and are now 20 years of age.  Your background is one of disadvantage.  Your family has been dysfunctional.  Your education has been limited.  Both of your parents have their own troubles.  You have had trouble complying with the law.  That has led to your spending time in the past in youth training centres.

1. In assessing the period of your imprisonment, I must allow for your youth.  Your prospects of rehabilitation can be somewhat more optimistically assessed in the light of your positive attitude to embarking on and finishing courses in prison.  I accept that you have shown a degree of remorse for having killed the deceased.  I allow in that regard, and because it has facilitated the course of justice, for your plea of guilty.  It was not a situation where a conviction was close to inevitable.  Statements made to Jeffrey Cummins, protesting no intention to kill, also represent an indication of some remorse.

1. You have served to today, 709 days by way of pre-sentence detention.   I direct that that be entered in the court records.   I impose a sentence of imprisonment of seven years.  I fix a non-parole period of five years.

---