R v Roba, Novosel & Wilson
[2000] VSC 170
•10 May 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Not Restricted |
No. 1448 of 1998
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| PAUL ROBA, ELVIS NOVOSEL AND KEITH WILSON |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 MAY 2000 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 170 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Murder – Home invasion – Deceased struck with iron pipe – Third offender convicted of manslaughter – Need for general deterrence - Genuine remorse – Excellent prospects of rehabilitation - 15 years for murder with a non-parole period of 10 years - 6 years for manslaughter with a non-parole period of 4 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | J. Leckie | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | D. Brustman F. Gucciardo H. Mason | Victoria Legal Aid G. Bryant & Associates Paul A. Vale Pty. |
HIS HONOUR:
Paul Richard Roba and Elvis Novosel you have both been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Robert Filipovic and you, Keith Samuel Wilson, have been found guilty of his manslaughter. The circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences were extensively canvassed during your trials but it is necessary to briefly outline them because they are relevant to the sentences which I must impose upon you.
In about January 1998, Natalie Roba, the sister of you, Paul Roba, and who was then aged 17, met the deceased Robert Filipovic who was 25 years old. A close relationship developed and the couple commenced living together. In April 1998, according to Ms. Roba, she was introduced to heroin by Mr. Filipovic, initially to relieve pain. In the ensuing months, however, the usage of heroin by the couple developed into a daily habit. By about October or November 1998 Ms. Roba was financing that habit out of social welfare payments, table top dancing, and stealing money and items including a TV, video recorder and CDs, (which were pawned), from her brothers and sisters. When confronted by them about these thefts, Ms. Roba denied responsibility.
The Roba family was a closely knit one and Ms. Natalie Roba's actions were very distressing both to her siblings and her parents. At that time Mr. Roba senior was quite ill. The family disapproved of the relationship between Ms. Roba and Mr. Filipovic and regarded the deceased as responsible for her dishonest activities and her addiction to heroin. According to one brother, Mr. James Roba, about two months before February 1999 you, Roba, indicated an intention to confront the deceased and even physically fight him if you encountered him at the family's Clonard Avenue home.
There was considerable discussion among the family as to how these problems should be resolved. The action taken included, in the latter part of 1998, an intervention order being taken out against Ms. Roba on behalf of her mother by a brother Mr. Roger Roba. You, Roba, disapproved of this procedure thinking it would make it more difficult to help Natalie whilst Roger thought it might "wake her up". It did not have that effect.
The evidence of another brother, Mr. Daniel Roba was that about two or three weeks before 18 February 1999, you, Roba, and he, visited a local police station to discuss the situation with the police. Daniel Roba's account was of a police officer suggesting that you visit Mr. Filipovic "to scare the shit out of him to make sure he understands what's going on". This was because normal words were having no effect.
One impediment to implementing this course was the fact that Ms. Natalie Roba had declined to reveal the address at which she was then residing with Mr. Filipovic. In fact it was in Barrands Lane, Drysdale in a property owned by the deceased's mother (Katarina Alagic). However, on about 17 February 1999 you, Roba, discovered that address when one of your sister's domestic bills was inadvertently delivered to the family home. You immediately determined to visit the Drysdale premises.
In the early evening of 17 February you, Roba, were at your Hearne Hill address in the company of a friend Hasan Kevelj. You discussed your family problems, particularly the troubled lifestyle of your sister, and you spoke of visiting her that evening. Later that night, Mr. Kevelj drove you to the house of a friend Elvis Novosel in Separation Street, Geelong and he accompanied you both back to your address. Accordingly to Mr. Kevelj, you, Roba and you, Novosel, canvassed a number of options including taking Natalie Roba away from the Drysdale premises and then calling the police and of putting Ms. Roba in an institution. Indeed, Mr. Kevelj said that you were constantly changing your minds about what to do. About 11.00 p.m. you, Keith Wilson, arrived at the premises. The evidence of Mr. Kevelj is that at one stage, you, Novosel, produced a knife from a pouch and threatened to use it on anyone who revealed your discussions outside the four walls of the house. You also said that, if you went down to Drysdale, you would use the knife to cut Natalie's boyfriend's leg open just to show him not to mess around. Later you said that you had the knife in case there was a dog there. On the evidence the knife was never produced at the Drysdale dwelling. If these words were uttered they tend to confirm the subsequent observation of Mr. Kevelj that you were "hyped-up" on this evening. They indicate a form of mindless bombast, but they also suggest a contemplated level of violence far less than eventually occurred.
Subsequently, each of you and Mr. Kevelj drove back to the Separation Street address where you, Roba and Novosel entered the premises returning with at least one iron pipe and a quantity of clothing. You then drove to Drysdale. En route the discussion of the various options continued and, according to Mr. Kevelj, there was mention of perhaps teaching Natalie's boyfriend a lesson and bashing him about a little bit.
On arriving at Drysdale your vehicle was parked in a supermarket car park some hundreds of metres away from the Barrands Lane premises. Upon alighting you Roba and Novosel each put on some of the clothing obtained from Novosel's house including track suit trousers and balaclavas. (Later, adjacent to the Drysdale house, the balaclavas were pulled fully over your faces). You were both "hyped-up" and, according to Mr. Kevelj, ignored his suggestion to abandon the enterprise and call the police. You, Wilson, put tape on your fingers apparently to cover your fingerprints. You, Roba, together with Wilson then approached the front of the house while Novosel initially went down the side driveway. After an unsuccessful attempt by you, Roba, to obtain entry into the premises by impersonating a neighbour, you gained access by breaking down two doors. By this time Novosel had joined you and he, then Wilson, followed you into the lounge area of the house. Although initially it appears that two iron pipes were brought to the scene, you, Roba, were the only person seen by Mr. Kevelj to enter the premises armed with a pipe. There was a suggestion by Ms. Roba that each of you had something in your hands but the only object identified by her was the pipe carried by you, Roba. Understandably there are a number of inaccuracies in Ms. Roba's evidence of this traumatic event and, in my view, the jury would not have been satisfied that either you, Novosel or you, Wilson were armed.
The Crown case was that you each acted in concert having agreed, prior to entering the house, to inflict really serious bodily injury upon Mr. Filipovic. Alternatively, it was submitted that you, Roba, intended at least to inflict really serious injury upon Mr. Filipovic, (albeit this later became an intent to kill), and that your co-offenders were guilty of aiding and abetting this murderous assault.
The accounts of each of you, recorded in your records of interview, of your intention up to the time that you entered the premises, vary. You, Roba, spoke of an intention to scare the deceased. In your interview, Novosel, you told police that you went to help your friend Roba out having heard an account of his family problems about which you were sympathetic. You denied going there to hurt Mr. Filipovic, and stated that you accompanied Roba to help him in case somebody else was present. In your interview, Wilson, you stated that there was no intention of seriously hurting Mr. Filipovic but: "maybe a little kicking or hitting or something". You also speak of roughing up Mr. Filipovic a little bit and of warning him to stay away from the family.
In my opinion if there was an agreement to intentionally cause really serious bodily injury prior to entering the Drysdale house, it is not clearly spelt out in the evidence. The inferences which may be drawn from the adoption of disguises, the arming of the participants, the timing of the enterprise, and the mode of entry into the premises, do not lead inexorably to the hypothesis that a prior agreement to kill or to cause really serious bodily injury existed. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a jury could exclude Wilson from such an agreement which, if made, had, on his own account, been effectively completed prior to any intervention by him to stop Roba further assaulting the deceased with the pipe. Additionally, I think it unlikely that the jury would have concluded that there was a pre-existing agreement to inflict really serious injury upon the deceased in the presence of Paul Roba's own sister, and after Roba had previously identified both himself and the perceived problem to the local police. Further, it is, in this case, difficult to infer prior intentions from what subsequently occurred in the house because the confrontation between the invaders and the deceased was unexpected and created a new dimension to the conflict.
The precise nature, sequence and timing of events inside the premises will never been known. However, the Crown relied principally upon the version of events given by Ms. Natalie Roba and the forensic evidence. According to Ms. Roba, the deceased had got out of their double bed, which was in the loungeroom of the house, in response to a knocking on the door. When the ploy of being a neighbour was unsuccessful, Mr. Filipovic threatened to call the police unless you, Roba, went away. It was, at this time, that Ms. Roba told him not to answer the door having recognised your voice. When you commenced to break into the house, Mr. Filipovic ran through the kitchen area into the sunroom at the back of the premises. He subsequently returned to the threshold of the kitchen area, armed with a butcher's knife. It should be made quite clear that he was lawfully entitled to defend himself, Ms. Roba, and his property, from your unlawful entry.
Although there is some confusion in Ms. Roba's account as to what occurred next, the jury would, in my view, have been satisfied that the three of you entered the loungeroom and, after pausing momentarily to take in the scene, you Roba and Novosel moved swiftly towards the loungeroom area where the deceased was located. While brandishing the knife Mr. Filipovic called out: "Alright, come on you fucks" in what was, in my view, an act of desperate bravado. Although Mr. Filipovic was wielding a knife, this did not deter you or halt your advance. If the production of the knife initially occasioned you fear, Roba, that fear quickly turned to anger at what you perceived to be the provocative actions of the deceased. Your claim to have acted in self-defence when confronted by Mr. Filipovic with the knife was rejected by the jury. Indeed, I am satisfied that they would have found that the production of the knife was the prelude to the severe beating of the deceased by you. Inherent in the jury verdict in your case is that, at this stage, you acted with the intention to either kill or cause really serious bodily injury to the deceased. It is difficult to determine which of these intentions the jury were satisfied you possessed, and I am certainly not prepared to find it was the former. In the course of the plea you told this Court that you never intended to cause Mr. Filipovic's death. I accept that you did not go to Drysdale either to kill him or to cause him really serious bodily injury. However, in the course of executing your ill-conceived scheme your resentment of the deceased exploded into a frenzied anger.
It is not necessary to detail the evidence of the pathologist Dr. Matthew Lynch. Among the many injuries apparent was the fatal injury probably caused by two jabs with the pipe to Mr. Filipovic's head which fractured his skull and drove the fragmented bone into the intracranial cavity. In all, 12 different areas of injury were observed. These injuries were caused by blunt trauma. In my view the jury would have been satisfied that most were caused by blows inflicted by you with the pipe even if, as was asserted by you to Mr. Kevelj, and by Wilson in his record of interview, the deceased fell down on to a lawnmower which was situated in the sunroom. Most of these blows were administered in the sunroom where damage to a light fitting and the ceiling are consistent with having been caused by a flailing pipe. The forensic evidence supports the account of both Mr. Kevelj and Ms. Roba of the sounds of an altercation emanating from this room. If, as Dr. Lynch stated, the injury to the skull would have rapidly produced unconsciousness, many of the blows must have been struck when the deceased was offering no resistance to you. However, I also take into account that everything happened very quickly in a highly charged emotional atmosphere.
According to Mr. Kevelj you later said that Wilson stopped your assault on Mr. Filipovic, although this was said in the context of your punching the deceased.
The three of you left the premises virtually together and you, Roba, said to your sister either: "Stay away from Clonard Avenue or you'll be killed" or "Stay away from Clonard Avenue you're killing mum and dad." If the former, it tends to show your level of aggression at the time.
En route to the residence of Paul Roba in Hearne Hill, you, Wilson, organised the disposal of clothing items and the iron pipe in an area of vacant land with which you were familiar. Also, while travelling from the scene, you, Novosel, threatened to harm Mr. Kevelj if he said anything about what had occurred. Despite these activities it is by no means clear as to precisely how aware any of you were, at this stage, of the extent of the harm you had occasioned to Mr. Filipovic. It seems that it was only subsequently, when interviewed by the police on 18 and 19 February, that you learned that Mr. Filipovic was critically ill. He subsequently died on 24 February 1999.
Your role Novosel in the actual attack on Mr. Filipovic was to accompany your friend Roba across the lounge area towards Mr. Filipovic. Indeed, you were so close when that attack commenced that you received injuries from the flailing pipe to your lip, right hand, and right thigh.
In your account to the police you spoke of the deceased pulling out the knife and Paul having: "kept on with him". You also said: "I helped, as in, I went down the side of Paul – never touched him, he went backwards – he went backwards to the back door. As number one's gone to hit him, he's hit me. As he's hit me, … blood and stuff from me, and I … ended up going to get the phone off his sister, 'cos I was pretty hurt myself. And as I've got the – I got the phone off his sister – she wasn't doing much at all. She was just laying on the bed … but she was, I think, screaming a little bit. It happened so quick. And in about 10, 20 seconds later the only thing I know is Paul said, 'Come on let's go. Let's go, go, go'."
Later in the interview you acknowledged that events must have occurred in the sunroom but asserted that, being in the loungeroom, you did not see what happened. Your account of restraining Ms. Natalie Roba on the loungeroom bed is supported by the evidence of both Ms. Roba and Mr. Kevelj.
In your case the jury verdict is consistent with the view that, having associated yourself with the initial attack by Roba with the pipe upon the deceased, you restrained Ms. Roba, preventing her from obtaining assistance while the assault, which you knew would cause Mr. Filipovic really serious bodily injury was, to your knowledge, continuing in the sunroom. In other words your culpability was founded upon aiding and abetting Roba. I accept that the level of violence escalated very quickly; that your participation in the fatal events was spontaneous; and that the events themselves were of relatively short duration. However, it would not be appropriate on the basis of the jury verdict as to your role in the fatal assault, to distinguish your level of culpability from that of Roba.
On your account, Wilson, you entered the premises with the object of preventing others who might have been there from attacking Paul Roba. Initially you went towards the left of the loungeroom before turning and observing the confrontation in which Mr. Filipovic was swinging a knife, and Roba, who was with Novosel, hit him twice with the pipe. You told police that Mr. Filipovic fell back striking his head on a lawnmower in the sunroom. Your version of events was that Roba and Novosel left the vicinity of the sunroom entrance and you entered the sunroom where you observed the deceased to be unconscious. You told the police that Roba re-entered the sunroom and endeavoured to strike Mr. Filipovic again with the pipe. You thwarted this attempt by grabbing hold of it. You screamed out to him to stop and urged your colleagues to leave the premises. At no time did you assault Mr. Filipovic and indeed, you claimed to be unarmed. Whilst it may be said that much of your police interview is self-serving, and it is clearly an inadequate description of what occurred, the jury may be taken as accepting that you acted to stop any further attack upon the deceased – a proposition that finds some limited support in the evidence of Mr. Kevelj.
The jury verdict of manslaughter is consistent with a finding of an initial understanding prior to entering the premises that an assault was likely to be committed and an acceptance of a role to prevent any interference to that course of action by others who may have been on the premises. Whether it was the view of the jury that you agreed or understood prior to entering the premises that the pipe would be utilised in that assault or whether you acquiesced to this course once Roba commenced to use the pipe, is a matter of conjecture. However, implicit in the verdict is the finding that you were never a party to any agreement to cause really serious bodily injury to Mr. Filipovic; nor were you guilty of aiding and abetting the perpetration of any violence inflicted with that intention. In reaching that conclusion the jury must have taken into account your efforts to prevent the assault on Mr. Filipovic continuing.
The events of this night represent a tragic error of judgment on the part of all of you. Not only have you completely destroyed one human life, you have partially destroyed your own and you have devastated the lives of those who loved Robert Filipovic and those who love you. Your actions, Roba, were fuelled not only by a genuine concern about your sister's situation but by a righteous indignation at her callous and dishonest conduct towards the Roba family. Your anger was also directed towards her partner Mr. Filipovic who you held largely responsible for her drug addicted activities. Your participation Novosel and Wilson was based upon similar sentiments and a misguided sense of loyalty to a friend. The result was an exercise in vigilante activity. The fact that you broke into the deceased's home aggravates the offences to some extent. It was not, however, the random invasion of the home of innocent persons by unknown predators seeking money or other items of value. Here, the principal parties were known to each other and the breaking and entering was part of a moral crusade conducted by you. I have no doubt that the actual course of events was one which none of you expected. Moreover, events occurred swiftly and you had no time for rational reflection. Nonetheless, the fact that you went armed as a group demonstrates not only a degree of pre-planning, but an awareness of the possibility of violence. Further, it needs to be made quite clear, that whatever the shortcomings of Ms. Roba and Mr. Filipovic they should never have been subjected to this unlawful activity.
The courts not only have a duty by imposing appropriate sentences to uphold the sanctity of human life but must also try to deter others who, by resort to violence as a problem solving technique, may destroy such life. Of course, murder and manslaughter are both offences committed in a wide range of circumstances by a wide variety of persons, and it is necessary to have regard to individual circumstances and factors personal to each offender in determining the appropriate sentence. I have mentioned some of those factors in discussing the facts surrounding this killing.
In each of your cases, your counsel have outlined a number of matters personal to you which are relevant to the sentence to be imposed. However, before turning to those matters I wish to say something about the deceased man. It is important to do so because the full picture of the victims of criminal activity is rarely revealed.
Robert Filipovic was only 26 years old when he died. The Victim Impact Statements prepared by his mother, Ms. Katarina Alagic and his sister Ms. Jennifer Stevens, speak of him as a warm hearted and generous person. He was a young man who loved the outdoors and particularly surfing. Whatever problems he may have been experiencing, he had the prospect of a long life ahead of him. Ms. Alagic has been deprived of a son who gave meaning to her life and Ms. Stevens, a brother with whom, after the trauma of separation in their early years, she had developed a positive and loving relationship. The untimely death of Robert Filipovic is something from which they will never fully recover.
Paul Roba, you are 27 years old. You have three brothers and twin sisters. Your parents, who migrated from Trieste, Italy, were both hard working people who settled in Geelong and established a stable and closely knit family. That family remains totally supportive of you. Unfortunately your father, who is aged 74, is in ill health having recently had a stroke.
You were educated at Bell Park Primary School and North Geelong High School to Year 10 level. You then completed Year 11 at Bell Park Technical College because you desired to engage in more vocationally orientated courses.
Upon leaving school you have undertaken a number of jobs. These have included shop assistant, poultry process worker, machine hand and ceramic tiler. You worked at Avalon airfield as a cargo loader for Ellis Air Cargo, until that business collapsed. At the age of 23 you obtained work at the City of Geelong in garden constructions during which time you studied first aid level 1 and obtained a certificate in horticulture. Regrettably, in what seems to be an all too prevalent trend, you and others were retrenched as a cost cutting measure. Subsequently you pursued casual work as a ceramic tiler, a picture framer and in garden maintenance work. At the age of 26, while you were recovering from a back operation, you enrolled at the Gordon Technical College and completed a bar attendants course and you were in the process of undertaking a small business course and a security course at the time of your arrest. Your history indicates a constant desire to pursue gainful employment.
Additionally, you have led a sport orientated life playing field hockey and soccer and also representative basketball for Geelong. However, Australian Rules Football has been your major interest and, after representing the Bell Park football team, you recently transferred to Portarlington. At each club you played in a semi professional capacity.
You have one prior court appearance which related to burglary and theft from a garage by a friend. Your role was driving him. You were 20 years old at the time and received a Community Based Order. That offence has no significance for the purposes of this sentence. What is more important is that you have no prior convictions for violence.
During your time in custody you have endeavoured to improve yourself and a number of certificates of your achievements were tendered to the Court. These have included drug awareness and drug treatment programs and courses run by Kangan TAFE in occupational health and safety, fork lift operation, and fitness instruction. These efforts in self-improvement are to your credit.
A number of letters were tendered which refer to your positive and non-violent nature, your loyalty to your family, your capacity for hard work and pride in your workmanship. Additionally, a letter from Sister Mary O'Shannessy of the Catholic Prison Ministry spoke of your deep regret and remorse at what had occurred. This was echoed in the report of Mr. Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist, who prepared a psychological report on your behalf. You also expressed your regret and remorse in this Court. I accept that such expressions are genuine.
In his report Mr. Joblin expressed the view that you had a good intellect and that you have no anti-social character disorder, psychopathic disposition or psychotic illness.
Your intellect, your capacity for hard work, your respect for family values, your lack of prior violent conduct and your remorse, are all factors which make your prospects of rehabilitation excellent.
Elvis Novosel, you are presently 28 years old. You have one elder sister. You were born in Zagreb, Croatia. Your parents came to Australia and settled in Geelong when you were aged three. Your parents separated when you were 13 but you appear to have maintained a relationship with each of them. You lived at the home of each of them until you were 21 and, when residing with your mother, you regularly attended church with her. None of your family has transgressed the law. They all remain supportive of you.
You were educated at Rowlands Primary School then Bell Park Technical College. You represented that school in cross-country running. You left half way through Year 11 and, thereafter, completed two and a half years of a cabinet making apprenticeship with T & D Kitchens in Geelong before your employers' partnership was dissolved. You then did tiling work, having gained experience in this trade from your father. This work included sub-contracting for Mitchell Homes. You pursued this occupation for some four years. At the age of 23 you suffered a black-out which apparently resulted in surgery after some neurological assessment. Thereafter you have worked successively for S & B Sandblasters at Moolap and with a paving company. At the time of this incident you had returned to work as a tiling sub-contractor.
Your recreational activities include fishing and hunting and walking your two dogs. In regard to hunting, a number of persons have trusted you sufficiently to give you free and unlimited access to their properties. In fact, you had the ambition to set up a large fish display on the property at which you lived with a family friend in Bell Post Hill. To this end you had received approval from the Flora and Fauna Authority and had an architect, Mr. Ivan Lukatic, prepare rough drawings.
About four years ago you met Mary Testa, a supporting mother with children aged 12 and 7. On your plea Ms. Testa gave evidence that you represented a father figure to those children. She spoke of your friendship with older people developed through your fishing activities and remarked on your capacity for hard work. Ms. Testa described you as a loving person in whom she had seen no aggression.
Your capacity for hard work was confirmed by Mr. Alan Graham who had met you through his son about 12 years ago. He spoke of your desire for perfection in your tiling work. Mr. Graham had never seen you aggressive and he spoke of your devotion to your animals over the years, particularly your dogs. Mr. Graham also told the Court of your movements between the home of each of your parents and expressed the view that you had not experienced a stable family relationship. Indeed he expressed the view that you wanted "to belong" and, to this end, substituted friends for family.
This theme was taken up by Mr. Bernard Healey, an experienced clinical psychologist who gave evidence on your behalf. In his opinion, your movement between parents in the period 17 to 21 years provided a level of disruption and, to some extent, was reflected in your need for acceptance and for friendship. Mr. Healey expressed the view that values of friendship and loyalty were important to you and would lead you to assist a friend who asked for support.
In terms of your IQ, tests conducted by Mr. Healey place you at the lowest end of the average range. There was no indication of any major psychological or emotional disturbance.
You have several minor convictions relating to the cultivation of one marijuana plant and the use of marijuana; failing to store a firearm safely and possession of ammunition without a licence; and driving a motor car while suspended. You have never before served any sentence of imprisonment and these offences are of no significance in this case. The one offence which, on its face, involves violence was an unlawful assault for which you were fined $350 at the Geelong Magistrates' Court in October 1998. I am instructed that this involved a cousin of yours approaching Ms. Testa in an abusive manner and you grappling with him. The small fine is indicative of the relatively minor nature of this matter.
You have endeavoured to make positive use of your time in custody and in June 1999 you achieved enhanced prisoner status. Subsequently you have held positions of trust working in the prison garden, in the gymnasium, and, more recently, in the kitchen. Your efforts in this regard have been creditable.
In statements you made in the police interview, to Mr. Healey, and to this Court, you have expressed your regret at what occurred to Mr. Filipovic and your remorse. I accept that such expressions of remorse are genuine.
In essence, despite your modest intellectual abilities, you have demonstrated the capacity for hard work. You have pursued outdoor activities and through them established friendships. You have the ability to form meaningful relationships and your past history does not indicate any propensity to violence. These factors, to which I add your remorse, indicate that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
Keith Wilson, you are 28 years of age and the youngest of three brothers. Your brothers have stable married lives and employment. Your father was a plumber by occupation but was also an alcoholic and when you were 20 your parents separated. You were educated initially at Park Orchards Primary School, where you found the early grades traumatic, being forced to write right handed in circumstances where, on occasions, your left hand was tied behind your back. One of your brothers, who was academically able and ultimately became a teacher, was sent to the Yarra Valley Anglican School. You were also given that opportunity although you missed much of Year 7 as a result of surgery for a congenital kidney disorder. You have always found it difficult to cope academically and, in Years 9 and 10 you were transferred to Mitcham Technical School. Here you attended classes in remedial English and Mathematics.
After Year 10 you commenced an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic, working successively at Berklee Exhausts and Graham Carter Motors, both in Ringwood and at Vermont Auto and Gas. Some six months before completing the four year apprenticeship you were involved in a motor bike accident and had your leg in plaster. You were wrongly accused of driving during the period of your convalescence, and when a dispute ensued with the management, you left without completing the apprenticeship. You lived at home with your parents until they separated when you were aged 20. At this time you obtained a job in a pizza shop operated by Mr. Barry Rogers, who subsequently became your step father.
Between 1993 and 1996, while you were in your mid twenties, you became a heavy drinker and graduated from taking marijuana to using amphetamines and heroin. You went to Byron Bay where you remained for six months and it was during that time that your mother became aware of your heroin habit. You returned to Victoria and were taken in by your mother and Barry Rogers to their home in Hampton Park. On your return from Byron Bay your employment also included working with a company in Wantirna that made bumper bars and assisting your eldest brother, if required, in his roof tiling business. Later you were given work in a fruit and vegetable shop Mr. Rogers was operating. At about this time you commenced a methadone program through a Dr. M. O'Toole in Dandenong. A letter from that doctor indicates that you saw him regularly between June 1997 and September 1998. During the course of the methadone program, you, together with your mother and step father moved to Geelong where he established a fruit, vegetable and flower shop. You have overcome your heroin addiction which is greatly to your credit and, additionally, just prior to this incident, you had established your own pizza business.
During 1997 you met Ms. Ramona McGee and eventually you commenced to live together.
Letters from her mother and a psychiatrist, Dr. Helen Driscoll, attest to the support you have provided to Ms. McGee in the course of her treatment for abuse during her adolescence by her step father and subsequent abuse at the hands of a bogus counsellor. She has also been supportive of you, and apparently, you contact her by phone many times a day. The letter from Mrs. McGee speaks not only of your support for her daughter Ramona but also Mrs. McGee's son Connor. She expresses her belief in your remorse for what has occurred. It was put that your inability to continue to support the person you loved dearly will, in itself, be a considerable punishment for you.
Another letter from former neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. Filliponi, speaks of your good behaviour and thoughtfulness and your willingness to assist others with minor problems they might have had with their motor vehicles. The writers advance the view that what occurred on this night was totally out of character.
Evidence was given by your mother Mrs. Beverley Dixon, who confirmed your schooling and employment history, your efforts on the methadone program and the close relationship you have with Ms. McGee. Your mother also spoke of your contribution in your teenage adolescent years to disadvantaged families in the Mitcham and Nunawading areas. Your family remains supportive of you and your step father Mr. Rogers is prepared to employ you upon your release from custody.
You have several minor prior convictions which include resisting police and being drunk in a public place in September 1993 and going equipped to steal and loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence in 1996. These were the subject of fines and related to the periods of time when firstly, you were drinking heavily and secondly, you were addicted to heroin. In August 1998 you were convicted of possession and use of a drug of dependence, being marijuana, which your counsel informed the Court you resorted to on occasions for relief from the stress of the methadone program. You were fined $500 in total for these offences. Finally, you have convictions in November and December 1998 for driving a motor car whilst suspended or disqualified. These matters, which do reflect a certain disregard of the law, attracted short terms of imprisonment. Your counsel said that they related to incidents occurring at an earlier time when you wrongly drove from Geelong to Dandenong to obtain further prescriptions from Dr. O'Toole for your methadone program.
In summary you are a person of limited educational attainments but you have shown a willingness to work hard and ultimately succeeded in setting up your own pizza business. You have exhibited sufficient discipline to defeat your heroin addiction, and you have both a girlfriend and family prepared to support you. Effectively you have no history of violence and you have expressed remorse for what occurred on this evening. On the basis of these factors, it may be said that your prospects of rehabilitation are good.
In determining the appropriate sentence for each of you, I have taken into account the circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences as I have outlined them, the specific role played by each of you, and your personal history.
One of the saddest aspects of this case has been to observe the anguish which your actions have caused, not only to your own families, but particularly to the family of the deceased. Nothing this Court does can, of course, bring Robert Filipovic back, and I must sentence you having regard to the seriousness the law attributes to these offences, and balancing as best I can the sentencing principles enunciated in the Sentencing Act, including punishment, specific and general deterrence and rehabilitation.
In accordance with my sentencing remarks I have concluded the appropriate sentences are as follows. Paul Roba you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 15 years. I fix a period of 10 years before you are eligible for parole. It is declared that a period of 448 days inclusive of today's date be reckoned as the period of detention already served under the sentence.
Elvis Novosel, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years and I fix a period of 10 years before you are eligible for release on parole. It is declared that the period of 447 days, inclusive of today's date, be reckoned as the period of detention already served under this sentence.
Keith Wilson, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 6 years and I fix a period of 4 years before you are eligible for parole. It is declared that the period of 447 days inclusive of today's date be reckoned as a period of detention already served under the sentence. I direct that there be noted in the records of the Court the fact that each declaration of pre-sentence detention has been made, and its details.
---
0
0
0