R v Mikhail

The case of R v Mikhail involved the accused who had stabbed his de facto wife with a screwdriver on numerous occasions, with the intent to kill her. The incident occurred while their children were present at home, and a child had to intervene to prevent further harm. The victim sustained life-threatening injuries to her chest, and while her physical wounds eventually healed, she required cosmetic surgery for a wound to her upper lip, the permanence of the scarring of which remains unclear. No victim impact statements were presented in court. The accused had a history of perpetrating family violence against the victim and had a significant criminal record. He had a traumatic childhood in war-torn Iraq and was receiving a disability pension due to a back injury, in addition to suffering from PTSD and depression, as well as a history of substance abuse. The court had to consider the accused’s limited prospects for rehabilitation and the potential hardships he might face in prison, particularly given his mental health issues and the restrictions imposed by COVID-19.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the attempted murder, weighing various factors including general and specific deterrence, just punishment, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the principle of parsimony, which emphasises the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offence, and the principle of totality, which ensures that the cumulative effect of any concurrent sentences does not result in an excessive penalty. Additionally, the court needed to account for the time the accused had already spent in pre-sentence detention due to an unrelated matter. After considering these factors, the court imposed a sentence of eleven years and four months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and one month. The court noted that but for the accused’s plea of guilty, the sentence would have been fourteen years and four months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eleven years and four months.

The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the accused’s history of violence, and the need to protect the community. The sentence also reflected the accused’s limited prospects for rehabilitation and the potential hardships he might face in prison. The court acknowledged the accused’s traumatic background and mental health issues but ultimately determined that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from committing similar acts of violence. The court’s decision provides guidance for future cases involving similar offences and circumstances.