R v Raimundo - [2015] VSC 550

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0190

THE QUEEN

NATHANAEL JOHN RAIMUNDO

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Raimundo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 550

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Unlawful and dangerous act – Victim fatally stabbed – Single stab wound – Plea of guilty – Sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr M J Rochford QC with

Ms F E Holmes

Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr J J Lavery with

Ms N Karapanagiotidis

Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Nathanael Raimundo, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Hieu Van Nguyen. The maximum penalty for that crime is 20 years’ imprisonment.

For the reasons I will now give, I intend to sentence you to be imprisoned for nine (9) years, and to fix a period of six (6) years before which you are not to be considered eligible for release on parole. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imprisoned you for 12 years, and fixed a non-parole period of nine (9) years.

At the time that you fatally stabbed him, Hieu Van Nguyen was aged 18 years.

You were aged 24, and occupied a house in Alfrieda Street, St Albans. A party was held at those premises from the evening of Friday, 10 May 2013, into the early hours of the next day. Illicit drugs — cannabis, heroin and ice — were consumed in considerable quantities. Hieu Van Nguyen was present at various times from the Friday night into the Saturday morning.

Shortly after 5.00 am on Saturday, 11 May 2013, the deceased and a number of others were present in the lounge room under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Mr Nguyen was sitting in front of a couch talking when you came into the room angry. You approached Mr Nguyen and kicked him. You then pushed Mr Nguyen onto his back, and struck towards his head several times with a large champagne bottle, calling him a ‘fucking idiot’.

You then said to Kether Mazzaro, ‘we are going to teach him a lesson — you hold him’. Mazzaro grabbed Mr Nguyen from behind and held him by the shoulders. You then approached and stabbed Mr Nguyen once in the chest above the right nipple. He then dropped to the floor.

Mr Nguyen asked you to take him to hospital, and said he would not tell anyone who had stabbed him. You ignored his pleas, however, and stripped him naked. He was then placed on a chair while you and Mazzaro cleaned up the blood. You then carried Mr Nguyen out of the house and put him into the…

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 Raimundo

Details

AGLC: R v Raimundo [2015] VSC 550
Case: [2015] VSC 550
Decision Date: 7 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Raimundo, the appellant stood convicted of manslaughter following a fatal stabbing of the victim. The incident arose from an altercation, during which the appellant inflicted a single stab wound that led to the victim's death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of the appellant's plea and the circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing framework for manslaughter, particularly given the nature of the unlawful and dangerous act that led to the victim's death. The court needed to balance the severity of the act, the culpability of the appellant, and the principles of justice and deterrence in determining the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, which typically warrants a discount in the sentence.

The court considered various aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at its decision. The single stab wound was deemed a significant act of violence, leading to the victim's death, and thus warranted a substantial penalty. However, the court recognised the appellant's early guilty plea, which typically reduces the severity of the sentence. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years, acknowledging the seriousness of the crime while also considering the appellant's remorse and early plea.

Orders