R v Raccanello

[2001] VSC 258

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1500 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN MAURICE RACCANELLO

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 April, 1-9 May, 19 June 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 July 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v John Maurice Raccanello
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 258

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – manslaughter – Discharge of Handgun – Inattention – Sentence of 5 years, minimum of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Thomas	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Miss. J. Sutherland	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1. John Maurice Raccanello.  You have been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of your wife Heather Raccanello in January 2000.  That same jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge that you murdered her.

1. In January 2000, you were living with your wife, and your three children and the parents of your wife in the house of your in-laws at Greensborough.  Because space inside the house was limited, you slept in a caravan in the back yard.  You and your wife were getting over certain problems.  Those problems included the use of illegal drugs.  In January 2000, both of you were taking both methadone and xanax on prescription. The problems also included difficulties in parenting.  Both of you seemed to have been adept at blaming the other for your problems.

1. The relationship between you and your wife was a stormy one.  Neither of you were working or had much in the way of outside interests.  You spent considerable time together .  Much of that time was taken up with arguing loudly.  Each of you did and said much to aggravate the other.

1. The picture was not all negative.  You and your wife had plans to move from the shared cramped accommodation at Greensborough to a place of your own in Ballarat.

1. You had a strong interest in guns.  You came by some money in mid 1999, and you spent $3500 in buying a handgun.  It was an automatic 38 Beretta.  You kept the Beretta and ammunition for it in the caravan.

1. On the afternoon of 25 January 2000, you were in the caravan with your wife.  You had a couple of hours earlier taken a dose of methadone and some xanax tablets.  You watched as she was sorting through some old clothes, preparing for the shift to Ballarat.  You took up the Beretta.  The evidence does not enable me to be satisfied why you acted as you did or precisely what you did.  The Beretta had many safety features but they were to no avail.  As you handled the Beretta, a bullet from it was discharged.  The bullet struck your wife in the left side of her head.  She died two days later.

1. You have claimed at all times that the shooting was an accident.  The verdict of the jury shows that they were not prepared to conclude that you intended to kill or really seriously injure your wife.  Your enthusiasm about the planned move with your wife to Ballarat would have been a major basis for their not coming to that conclusion.

1. Your casual approach resulted in the death of your wife.  You have deprived three children of their mother. You failed to take even the basic precautions in the handling of a gun. Where there should have been a heightened awareness of the danger of handling a handgun in the presence of another person present, there was inattention.  All this in a man who understood the reasons for treating a firearm with extreme care.  General deterrence must play a considerable part in the sentence that I impose on you.  It is highly dangerous to take up a handgun in a suburban setting.  The community would expect that where death has resulted from the firing of the gun in such circumstances, the punishment will be appropriately severe.

1. I have read and been troubled by the victim impact statement of Juanita Hunt, the mother of your wife.  She is at present taking care of your three children. The death of her daughter has taken, is taking, and will continue to take, its toll on her, on her husband and on the three children. 

1. You have been before the courts on many occasions over the past twenty years.  Your appearances have been mainly for driving offences.  Until you had prison sentences imposed in 1994 and 1997, you seem to have treated with contempt the laws requiring a licence to drive.  There was a period of elevated trouble about ten years ago, apparently related to the use of illegal drugs.  In your favour, there does seem to have been a tapering off in the level of your anti-social behaviour in the last few years. And there are no convictions for crimes of violence.

1. I turn to your personal circumstances.  You are 39 years of age, having been born in March 1962.  Your father died in 1981.  Your mother and sisters live in Italy.  In a trench collapse work incident in 1980 you suffered a back injury.  That led to your needing prescription drugs, which then led to your becoming addicted to the use of heroin.  Getting off the addiction led to your taking both methadone and other drugs on prescription.  You have suffered from depression, which has been aggravated by various problems.  These and other matters contributed to your being part of a household that was significantly dysfunctional.

1. I accept that you co-operated well with the police, after taking steps initially which were calculated to mislead them.  I have reviewed what has been said about you by the psychiatrist, Dr Lester Walton.  I have noted what he said about matters including your family background, your drug use, your depression, your prospects of establishing a good relationship with your children, as well as about events occurring involving you, and attention provided to you, in prison

1. I have taken into account other mitigating factors.  They include that you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter at an early stage.  I am satisfied that you have shown remorse for the death of your wife.  Prison life has clearly proved harder for you than for most.  It is to your credit that you have done several courses to better yourself, and that you have volunteered for garden maintenance work.  There appear to be at least moderately good prospects of rehabilitation.  As I noted earlier, your three children remain with your wife’s parents.  The burden on the two of them is heavy, but they may have trouble accepting options for relieving that burden which would impair the value of what they have done.  You have plans for being reunited with the children, for getting into a home and for getting work.  How realistic those plans are will have to be assessed by the relevant authorities upon your release.

1. I declare that you have spent 548 days in prison up to today, 25 July 2001.  I direct that that declaration be noted in the records of the court.  I impose on you a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.  I fix a non-parole period of 3 years.