| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2019 0271
| Between: | |
| THE QUEEN | |
| -and- | |
| DIMITRI MIKHAIL | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Croucher J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8 September 2020 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 15 October 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Mikhail |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 681 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Attempted murder — Accused stabbed de facto wife with screwdriver 25 times to face, chest, shoulders and arms, intending to kill her — Offence committed while couple’s children also home — Child dragged accused away from victim — Life-threatening injuries to chest — Physical injuries resolved — Wound to upper lip required cosmetic surgery — Unable to conclude whether scarring to upper lip is permanent — No victim impact statements — Accused had history of perpetrating family violence against victim — Early plea of guilty initially, then withdrawn, then reinstated — Some remorse — Significant criminal history — Traumatic childhood in war-torn Iraq — Disability pensioner because of back injury — PTSD and depression — History of alcohol and methamphetamine abuse — Guarded/reasonable prospects of rehabilitation — Hardship of prison given mental health afflictions and risk of worsening same given COVID-19 restrictions — Current sentencing practices — Relevance of general deterrence, specific deterrence, just punishment, denunciation, community protection and rehabilitation — Parsimony — Totality — Reduction of sentence by two months to account for loss of pre-sentence detention because of unrelated matter — Sentence of eleven years and four months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eight years and one month — But for plea of guilty, sentence of fourteen years and four months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eleven years and four months.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms K Churchill and Ms S Clancy | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A Malik | Valos Black & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Overview
On the morning of 9 June 2019, Dimitri Mikhail[1] did something unforgivable to Maria Fabri — his de facto wife of 19 years and the mother of their three teenage boys. While in their home at Craigieburn, Mr Mikhail, in a frenzied attack, took to Ms Fabri with a sharpened stubby screwdriver. He forced her back onto their couch and stabbed her, not once or twice, but up to 25 times to her chest, shoulders, arms and even her face. Incredibly, perhaps, to many — but consistently with the accounts of victims in many an assault of this type — Ms Fabri did not realise that she was being stabbed or that her partner was even armed. Instead, she thought he was just punching her. As the pounding continued, she yelled out, “You’re going to kill me.” Chillingly, Mr Mikhail’s response was, “Yes, that’s what I want to do.”
[1]In 2005, Mr Mikhail changed his surname to Mikhail from Toma.
Thanks to two of the couple’s sons, however, and perhaps also as a result of an extraordinary piece of luck, Ms…
Continue reading R v Mikhail
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Mikhail [2020] VSC 681
- Case
- [2020] VSC 681
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that balanced the gravity of the offence with mitigating factors, including Mikhail's history of abuse, his mental health, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing for attempted murder, including the roles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, just punishment, community protection, and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider the totality principle, the impact of pre-sentence detention, and the relevance of Mikhail's plea of guilty.
In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the severity of the attempted murder and the need for a punitive response. However, it also took into account the mitigating factors presented, such as Mikhail's traumatic background, his mental health issues, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced Mikhail to eleven years and four months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and one month, reflecting the plea discount. The sentence aimed to address the gravity of the offence while also considering the complex personal circumstances of the defendant.
The court's decision included a reduction of two months to account for the loss of pre-sentence detention due to an unrelated matter. The judgment underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the rehabilitative potential and personal hardships of the offender. The final orders, detailed in paragraphs [121] to [128], reflected these considerations and the legal principles applied.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [121] - 128]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.