R v Mocenigo - [2012] VSC 599

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0029 of 2012

THE QUEEN

ADAM EMILIO MOCENIGO

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 November 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mocenigo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 599

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence following jury verdict - Murder - Concealment of body - Absence of remorse - Sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC with Ms S Flynn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J McMahon with Ms K Argiropoulos	Michael J Gleeson and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Adam Emilio Mocenigo, on 28 September 2012, after a trial of some eleven days, you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Kristy-Lee Hall. The death of Ms Hall arose out of an incident in which you were involved and which I am satisfied occurred on the evening of Saturday 26 March 2011 at 6 Clauscen Street, Heidelberg Heights where you, she and your child Chloe lived. At the time she died, Kristy-Lee Hall was aged 27 years.

On 20 November 2012, I heard submissions from counsel on your behalf and on behalf of the prosecution as to the sentence to be imposed on you. I must now sentence you for this crime. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The offence of which you have been found guilty was committed in the following circumstances. You and Kristy-Lee Hall had begun a relationship after first meeting each other during 2007. At the time of you meeting the evidence suggests that Kristy-Lee Hall had a significant drug addiction problem. On 17 June 2008, a child of your relationship, Chloe, was born. In 2009, you, Ms Hall and Chloe moved to the premises at Clauscen Street, Heidelberg Heights.

For some time prior to her death, Ms Hall had apparently told family and friends that, in effect, her relationship with you had failed and she had no feelings for you. She apparently also said that she was only remaining with you for the sake of the child Chloe but also was suggesting that she wanted to live somewhere else and making some enquiries about doing so. Clearly there were problems in the relationship and you were aware that was the case.

Whatever she said, she demonstrated the truth of the failure of the relationship by commencing a relationship with a man called Ross Teazis who was an unemployed drug dealer. That relationship was current at the time of her death. Whatever other attractions Teazis had for Ms Hall, he supplied her with heroin and was doing so in the first part of 2011 and she was a regular user of that and other drugs.

On Saturday 26th March 2011, the evidence on your trial demonstrated that Ms Hall left the premises in which you were living at Clauscen…

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 Mocenigo

Details

AGLC: R v Mocenigo [2012] VSC 599
Case: [2012] VSC 599
Decision Date: 7 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mocenigo, the defendant was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The victim's body was never found, but the court found that the defendant had killed the victim and concealed the body. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime and the absence of remorse shown by the defendant. The prosecution submitted that a lengthy sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the offence and the defendant's lack of remorse.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his otherwise clean criminal record and his young age at the time of the offence. However, the court found that these factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society from the defendant. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 22 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court found that this sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to balance the competing principles of sentencing for murder.

The court emphasised the heinous nature of the offence, including the fact that the defendant had killed someone and then concealed the body, making it difficult for the victim's family to obtain closure. The court also noted the absence of remorse shown by the defendant, which was a significant aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that a lengthy sentence was necessary to adequately denounce the offence and to deter the defendant and others from committing similar crimes in the future. The court also considered the need to protect society from the defendant, given the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of re-offending.

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in custody pending the availability of a suitable prison. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to certain conditions during his imprisonment, including restrictions on his access to the media and his ability to profit from the offence. The court emphasised the importance of these conditions in protecting the community and preventing the defendant from exploiting the offence for personal gain. Overall, the court's sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to balance the competing principles of sentencing for murder.

Orders