Legal Research
Cases
R v Rapovski

R v Rapovski

Case [2015] VSC 359 24 July 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0114

THE QUEEN

DENIS RAPOVSKI

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	15 April to 11 May and 11 June 2015
DATE OF REASONS:	24 July 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rapovski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 359

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Gunshot fired – Victim left paraplegic Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms L Ristivojevic	Tricarico & Marcevski Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Rapovski, the jury found you guilty of attempted murder, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.

Your victim was a young man named Evan Tepelis, who you shot once in the neck, leaving him a paraplegic.

Your paths crossed on the night of 1 February 2014 as a result of you driving a former friend, Philip Sazdanovski, to Dalton Road, Thomastown where he had arranged to meet, or, more accurately, confront, Tepelis as a result of a disagreement about a young woman.

The young woman in question, Natasha Talevski, had once been in a relationship of sorts with Tepelis. After their relationship soured, Talevski complained to her friend Sazdanovski about Tepelis hassling and threatening her and gave Sazdanovski Tepelis’ mobile phone number. Whether there was any substance to Talevski’s complaints about Tepelis is not something I need to decide. What is relevant is that Sazdanovski promptly contacted Tepelis. In the following hours, the two men exchanged texts and phone calls which became increasingly heated, culminating in them arranging to meet in Thomastown that night, near where Tepelis lived.

At the time, Sazdanovski was staying at your place. He did not have a valid driver’s licence. He asked you to drive him to Thomastown. Your girlfriend at the time, Nicolaidis, accompanied the two of you. She sat in the front passenger seat. Sazdanovski sat in the back.

You pulled up on the corner of Dalton Road and Rochester Drive where Tepelis and two of his friends, Dejan Kupresak and Jeton Krasniqi, were waiting. Tepelis had a machete and the other two had golf clubs. Krasniqi picked up a glass bottle which he threw at your car. It struck the front window on the passenger side, which was partly open. The bottle also struck Nicolaidis, cutting her face and dislodging a tooth. She was bloodied and screaming. Both you and Sazdanovski jumped out of the car. Sazdanovski had a wooden mallet. You had a hand gun. You moved around the rear of the car, took aim and fired one shot at Tepelis who was standing on the footpath or nature strip, not more than about 10 metres away. The shot hit him in the neck and he went to the ground. You and Sazdanovski jumped back in the car and drove off. Later that evening, you took Nicolaidis to hospital for treatment 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 Rapovski

Details

AGLC: R v Rapovski [2015] VSC 359
Case: [2015] VSC 359
Decision Date: 24 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Rapovski involved the defendant, who was charged with attempted murder following an incident where a gunshot was fired at a victim, leaving them paraplegic. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the severity of the offence, the harm caused to the victim, and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The defendant argued that he had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, which should be considered in mitigation of his sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant in light of the gravity of the offence and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for the defendant to reform and reintegrate into society. The court also had to consider the impact of the crime on the victim, who was left with severe and permanent injuries.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim. However, it also considered the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, noting that the defendant had shown some remorse and had a history of mental health issues. The court found that, while the offence was grave, the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation warranted a sentence that allowed for the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court ultimately determined that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting both the severity of the offence and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the defendant, with a specified non-parole period, reflecting the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of balancing punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in reaching its decision.

Orders