R v Natale - [2019] VSC 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0142

THE QUEEN
v
DOMENICO NATALE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TAYLOR J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 December 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Natale
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 30

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Reckless conduct endangering life – Use unregistered longarm – Stalking – Threat to Kill – 87 year old offender – Two shots fired at sex worker outside brothel – Offending motivated by anger and sense of entitlement – General deterrence and denunciation of primary importance – Consideration of mental functioning – Limited applicability of Verdins principles – Physical health arising from self-inflicted shotgun wound in aftermath of offending – Consideration of Barci and Asling (1994) 76 A Crim R 103 – Sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eighteen months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J McWilliams	John Cain, Solicitor to the OPP
For the Accused	Mr S Moglia	O’Sullivan & Ruffilli

HER HONOUR:

Domenico Natale, you have pleaded guilty to four offences, namely stalking, reckless conduct endangering life, using an unregistered longarm, and making a threat to kill, arising from your conduct in July 2017.

The maximum penalty for use of an unregistered longarm of the type of shotgun that you used is two years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for each of the other offences is ten years’ imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

The thread uniting each of your crimes is your attitude towards a woman you knew as “Rika”. Rika worked as a sex worker at Romantics, a brothel in Brunswick. You were her long-term client and, over and above the sexual services she provided, she was kind to you. You profess both a belief that your relationship with Rika transcended the purely commercial and a genuine affection for her. But, whatever the state of your subjective beliefs and feelings, you were certainly of the view that Rika had no right to end her arrangement with you.

Your anger and disbelief that she did so found voice in violent, criminal conduct. And this conduct speaks, appallingly, of your sense of entitlement to this woman.

In 2012 you were 83 years of age. Your wife was dying, and physical intimacy between you had ceased. You satisfied your libido by obtaining sexual services at brothels. You became a regular client of Romantics and, in particular, of Rika. To facilitate the scheduling of appointments, you and Rika exchanged telephone numbers.

Your wife died in 2015. Following this, your attachment to Rika increased. You frequently called and sent her text messages. You invited her to your home. She attended. Rika says that this was a friendly gesture in so far as she performed no services during, nor received any payment for, her visits. You told Associate Professor Andrew Carroll, who prepared a psychiatric report on your behalf, that there were many such visits, for…

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 Natale

Details

AGLC: R v Natale [2019] VSC 30
Case: [2019] VSC 30
Decision Date: 5 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Natale, the respondent was convicted of recklessly engaging in conduct endangering life, using an unregistered longarm, stalking, and threatening to kill. The incident took place outside a brothel where shots were fired at a sex worker. The respondent, an 87-year-old man, was driven by anger and a sense of entitlement, resulting in the commission of these serious offences. The case was heard in a higher court, tasked with determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the consideration of the respondent's age, mental functioning, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to assess the relevance of Verdins principles in this context and take into account the physical health consequences of the respondent's self-inflicted shotgun wound. The court's task was to balance these factors with the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community.

The court held that general deterrence and denunciation were of primary importance in this case. While the respondent's age and mental functioning were considered, they did not outweigh the need to send a strong message about the seriousness of the offences. The court found limited applicability of Verdins principles in this case, given the nature of the offences and the respondent's motivation. The court also acknowledged the respondent's physical health issues but determined that they did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months.

The court's decision was guided by the principles established in Barci and Asling (1994) 76 A Crim R 103, which emphasised the importance of considering the offender's age and mental functioning when determining an appropriate sentence. The court found that these factors did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence, given the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the impact of the respondent's self-inflicted shotgun wound on his physical health but determined that this did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence.

Orders