R v Mazzaro - [2015] VSC 528

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0191

THE QUEEN

KETHER MAZZARO

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 September 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mazzaro
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 528

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Unlawful and dangerous act – Victim fatally stabbed whilst being held – Early plea of guilty – Relative youth – Sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms F Holmes	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Bayles	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Kether Mazzaro, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Hieu Van Nguyen, the maximum penalty for which is 20 years’ imprisonment.

I intend to sentence you to be imprisoned for six (6) years, and to fix a period of three (3) years before which you are not to be considered eligible for release on parole. It is necessary that I state my reasons for arriving at that sentence.

At the time of his death Hieu Van Nguyen was aged 18 years. He died as a result of a stab wound to the chest, inflicted by Nathanael Raimundo whilst you held him from behind.

Raimundo was the occupier of a house in Alfrieda Street, St. Albans. There was a party held at those premises from the evening of Friday, 10 May 2013, into the early hours of the next day. Considerable quantities of illicit drugs — cannabis, heroin and ice — were consumed at the party. Hieu Van Nguyen was present at various times from the Friday night into the Saturday morning.

Shortly after 5.00 am on Saturday, 11 May 2013, you, the deceased and a number of other people were present in the lounge room in various states of intoxication from a combination of drugs and alcohol. Mr Nguyen was sitting in front of a couch talking with Samir Mustafic and Alen Hodzic. You were standing nearby, when Raimundo came into the room in a state of anger. He approached Mr Nguyen — who was squatting — and kicked him. He then pushed Mr Nguyen onto his back. Raimundo then struck Mr Nguyen’s head repeatedly with a large champagne bottle, calling him a ‘fucking idiot’.

Raimundo then said to you, ‘we are going to teach him a lesson — you hold him’. You then grabbed the hapless Mr Nguyen from behind and held him by the shoulders. Raimundo then approached the two of you and stabbed Mr Nguyen in the chest above the right nipple. You let go of him and he dropped to the floor.

Mr Nguyen asked you and Raimundo to take him to hospital. He said he would not tell anyone who had stabbed him. You ignored his pleading, however, and stripped him of his clothing. He was then…

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 Mazzaro

Details

AGLC: R v Mazzaro [2015] VSC 528
Case: [2015] VSC 528
Decision Date: 30 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mazzaro involved the appellant, who was convicted of manslaughter. The victim had been fatally stabbed while being held, an act deemed unlawful and dangerous. The case reached the court where the primary issue was the appropriate sentence for the appellant given the circumstances of the crime. The appellant had pleaded guilty early, and his relative youth was also considered during sentencing. The court was tasked with balancing the gravity of the crime against the mitigating factors of the early guilty plea and the appellant’s age.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, focusing on the unlawful and dangerous nature of the act that led to the victim’s death. It also considered the appellant’s early guilty plea, which generally warrants a reduced sentence, and his relative youth, which could potentially mitigate the severity of the punishment. The court took into account the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to uphold the principle of proportionality in sentencing. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

In delivering its decision, the court noted the serious nature of the crime but also acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The court concluded that while the act was unlawful and dangerous, resulting in the victim's death, the appellant’s early guilty plea and his youth warranted a sentence that was not excessively punitive. The sentence was designed to reflect the gravity of the crime while also considering the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court’s decision was thus a balanced approach that aimed to serve justice, deterrence, and the interests of rehabilitation.

Orders