R v Raccanello - [2001] VSC 258

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1500 of 2000

THE QUEEN

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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 Raccanello

Details

AGLC: R v Raccanello [2001] VSC 258
Case: [2001] VSC 258
Decision Date: 25 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria presided over a case involving a defendant, Raccanello, charged with manslaughter following the discharge of a handgun which resulted in death. The case centred around the circumstances under which the handgun was discharged and the extent of the defendant's culpability. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter committed under circumstances of inattention.

The primary legal issues before the court were the severity of the offence and the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, particularly given the element of inattention. The court considered the culpability of the defendant, the nature of the offence, and the necessity to balance punitive and rehabilitative objectives of sentencing. The court also had to weigh the minimum sentence requirement under the Sentencing Act, which mandates a minimum non-parole period for serious offences.

The court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated a significant degree of recklessness, leading to the tragic outcome. It was determined that the discharge of the firearm was due to inattention, which significantly contributed to the death. In arriving at the sentence, the court considered the defendant's remorse, background, and the impact on the victim's family. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of three years. This sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that Raccanello be imprisoned for a total of five years, with a non-parole period of three years, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders