R v Neacsu - [2012] VSC 388

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0155 of 2011

THE QUEEN

MARIN NEACSU

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 February 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 September 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Neacsu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 388

---

Plea of guilty – Murder, stabbing of estranged wife’s lover, multiple stab wounds, sustained attack, immediate confession, early plea.
Age 56 years, Minor priors, remorse, very limited “Verdins”, disputed fact finding on plea.
Sentence: 17 years 6 months - Minimum of 14 years and 6 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose S.C.	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr A Furstenberg	Lewnberg & Lewenburg Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

On 24 February 2012 you, Marin Neacsu, pleaded guilty to one count of murder of Ionel Coca, which occurred on 23 February 2011.

You were born on 24 July 1954 and are currently aged 58. You have two prior convictions. The first being at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 14 November 1989, of trafficking a drug of dependence (heroin) and possessing a drug of dependence (heroin) for which you were fined $2,500 and $500 respectively. The second offences were at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 11 December 1992 one count of recklessly cause injury for which you were convicted and sentenced to 7 months’ imprisonment, such sentence being wholly suspended for a period of 12 months, together with a fine $500 and a second count of unlawful assault for which you were fined $400. The first offences are matters that relate to procuring the sexual favours of a female, I have unfortunately received no information in respect of the second group of offences.

The background, relating to the murder of Mr Coca, began in August 2010. He came to Australia from Romania. Prior to his arrival here he had met your son in law Manual Carciumaru and he, together with your daughter Alis, met him upon his arrival, initially he stayed at their home and you later became friends with the deceased man and invited him to reside with you and your wife at your premises in Sunshine West. He did so and moved into a bungalow at the rear of the house. His plans were to stay in Australia for about a year, then return to Romania with a view to, ultimately, permanently migrating to Australia.

Whilst he was residing at your premises he and your wife, Dida Neascu, became friends and ultimately fell in love, although whether that occurred before or after the deceased left your premises is not known. The Crown in their opening remarks submitted that, as a consequence of this relationship, you became suspicious and jealous, and prior to Christmas 2010 the relationship between yourself and your wife and the deceased man was strained. Your counsel submitted this was not accurate, and the reality was, not that you were suspicious or jealous, but that you realised that…

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 Neacsu

Details

AGLC: R v Neacsu [2012] VSC 388
Case: [2012] VSC 388
Decision Date: 4 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an individual who had stabbed his estranged wife’s lover to death. The accused pleaded guilty to murder and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The incident involved a sustained attack, with the victim sustaining multiple stab wounds, and the accused confessed immediately after the act. The accused was 56 years old with a minor criminal record and expressed remorse. The court had to navigate a complex set of factors, including the plea of guilty, the nature of the crime, and the accused’s level of remorse and prior criminal record.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence of murder. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the crime, the immediate confession and plea of guilty, and the accused's level of remorse and prior criminal record. The court also had to address the limited “Verdins” available, which were disputed, and the factual aspects of the plea. The court had to balance these factors in light of the principles of sentencing for murder.

The court found that despite the mitigating factors, the gravity of the crime necessitated a significant custodial sentence. The court recognised the accused’s remorse and limited criminal history but emphasised the brutality and premeditation involved in the stabbing. The court determined that a sentence of 17 years and six months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 14 years and six months. This sentence reflected the need for punishment and deterrence, while also considering the accused's personal circumstances.

The court’s final order was that the accused be sentenced to 17 years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years and six months. This sentence aimed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the accused.

Orders