R v Russo - [2005] VSC 348

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1452 of 2001

R	Plaintiff
v
GIUSEPPE RUSSO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2005 to 18 May 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Russo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 348

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder of parents – 28 years' imprisonment – 23 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Elston SC and Ms E Brimer	Ms H Fatouros
For the Defendant	Mr A Shwartz and Mr J Singh	Mr J Anile

HIS HONOUR:

Giuseppe Russo you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of your parents, Gaetano and Maria Russo, at Altona North in 1998.

This is the second time you have been tried for these crimes. The verdict of guilty of the first jury in a trial conducted by Justice Redlich was overturned on appeal on legal grounds. You were retried before a jury in a trial conducted by me and again a verdict of guilty was returned.

The members of that jury were conscientious and diligent. They found you bashed your elderly and defenceless parents to death in their own home for financial gain. Because of the weight of the evidence against you, they found your protestations of innocence to the police, not repeated to the jury because you did not give evidence, were lies.

Your counsel gave me some insight into your personal background, the narrow and traditional nature of your upbringing, the loving relationship you, an only child, had with your parents and the support you gave them in many ways over the years, especially when they were sick. He gave me a summary of your educational and work history.

The crimes were committed in the following circumstances. Despite all the love, negative emotional forces built up in your small family over a long period of time. Although an adult, you felt strongly entitled to share in your parents’ financial resources. You were retrenched and then dissipated your own modest savings. Under pressure for money, you called on your parents’ generosity, as you had done often in the past. When they refused, you exploded into a murderous rage and bashed them to death. You then unsuccessfully attempted to conceal your actions.

Following your conviction by the first jury, Justice Redlich sentenced you to imprisonment for 28 years with a minimum of 23 years before being eligible for parole. Your counsel has submitted the circumstances leave it open to me to impose a lesser sentence, or at least a lesser minimum sentence.

You have committed two brutal crimes for which you have expressed no remorse. You continue to protest your innocence.

The nature and gravity of the crimes are of the most serious kind and deserve the strongest denunciation. You and other people must be deterred from committing such crimes in the future. The most precious human…

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 Russo

Details

AGLC: R v Russo [2005] VSC 348
Case: [2005] VSC 348
Decision Date: 1 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Russo involved the defendant, Russo, who was convicted of the murder of his parents. The appeal centred around the severity of the sentence imposed, specifically the 28-year term of imprisonment, which included a 23-year non-parole period. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was excessive and whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the principles of proportionality and individualisation in imposing the sentence. The High Court of Australia heard the case, which focused on the adequacy of the sentence in light of the gravity of the crime.

The primary legal issues were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the judge had erred in applying the principles of sentencing, particularly regarding the proportionality and individualisation of the sentence. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the sentencing guidelines and the balance between the severity of the crime and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court had to examine the sentencing judge's reasoning, the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors, and whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crime.

The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court noted the heinous nature of the crimes, the lack of remorse shown by the offender, and the need for deterrence and protection of society. The judges held that the sentence imposed was justified and that the offender's personal circumstances did not warrant a lesser sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the original sentence.

Orders