R v Mihayo - [2014] VSC 652

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0127

THE QUEEN

CHARLES AMON MIHAYO

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 November 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mihayo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 652

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two counts of murder – Plea of guilty – Murder of two infant children by father – Marital conflict – Whether premeditated - Whether accused remorseful – Acceptance of responsibility – Mental state – Condition of depression arising from marital disharmony – No significant moderation of general deterrence or denunciation – Custody more onerous - Record of interview – Detailed history of marital issues – Sentence of life imprisonment – Minimum term before parole 31 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Silbert QC	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Marsh	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Charles Amon Mihayo, on 22 August 2014 at a committal mention hearing in the Magistrates’ Court, you pleaded guilty to two counts of murder. You again pleaded guilty before me in this Court on 5 September 2014. On 5 November 2014, I heard an opening in the matter by the Chief Crown Prosecutor, and a plea on your behalf by your counsel, including submissions as to the sentence that I should impose on you.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. It is now my duty to sentence you for these crimes.

The victims of your actions were your two daughters, Savannah aged 4 years and Indianna aged 3 years. You murdered your children on Sunday 20 April 2014 at Watsonia.

I have been actively involved in the practice of the criminal law since 1973. I believe I largely understand why serious crimes occur, no matter how vicious, but I admit, I am at a loss to understand these terrible crimes.

I simply do not understand why, when the continuing argument was between you and your ex-wife about these children, you made them pay with their lives in order to inflict pain and loss on your ex-wife. In my view that motivated your actions.

Killings like this are subject to regular public discussion, and so they should be, because they are hideous crimes devoid of any form of justification or proper explanation. To the extent that by enquiry and analysis, there can be identified an understandable pattern of reasons why parents, usually men, murder their children in circumstances of marital conflict, that pattern needs to be understood so that such events can be stopped or substantially reduced in number.

Circumstances of Offending

You are of Tanzanian origin and you are a permanent resident of Australia. In 2000 you went from Tanzania to China and worked in languages, becoming a translator for visitors to China who were doing business there. In 2003 in that country you met the woman who was to become the mother of…

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 Mihayo

Details

AGLC: R v Mihayo [2014] VSC 652
Case: [2014] VSC 652
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mihayo, the respondent, Mihayo, stood accused of two counts of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The deceased were the respondent's two infant children, who were killed in a tragic incident arising from marital conflict. Mihayo had pleaded guilty to both counts of murder. The central issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the respondent, considering the nature of the crimes, the respondent's acceptance of responsibility, and his mental state at the time of the offence.

The court had to consider whether the murders were premeditated, the level of remorse shown by the respondent, and the impact of the respondent's mental condition, which was influenced by depression stemming from marital disharmony. The court noted that while the crimes were heinous, there was no significant mitigation in terms of general deterrence or denunciation. Additionally, the court examined the respondent's acceptance of responsibility and the condition of his mental health. Given these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 31 years. This sentence balanced the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors presented.

The court's reasoning was rooted in the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the respondent's personal circumstances. The detailed history of marital issues and the respondent's state of mind at the time of the offence were pivotal in shaping the court's decision. The court also took into account the impact of the sentence on the respondent's future, ensuring that it was sufficiently punitive yet considerate of his mental health and acceptance of responsibility.

The final orders of the court were that Mihayo be sentenced to life imprisonment for the two counts of murder, with a non-parole period of 31 years. This sentence was designed to reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also taking into account the respondent's mental state and acceptance of responsibility.

Orders