R v Russo - [2003] VSC 164

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1452 of 2001

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
GIUSEPPE RUSSO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	REDLICH J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R -v- Russo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 164

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Killing of parents by son

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan S.C. Ms R. Carlin	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Darcy Mr J. Singh	Mr John Anile

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Russo you were convicted by jury of the murder of your parents, Gaetano and Maria Russo at their home in Blackshaws Road, Altona North on 18 April 1998.

The Facts

Your parents separately immigrated to Australia from Italy and married here in 1963. You were their only child and the sole beneficiary of their estates which was subsequently valued in excess of $200,000. They spoke little English and had few friends that visited them.

Your parents had been very generous in providing you with financial assistance. A unit at 55 Monash Street, Sunshine was purchased for you and your wife to live in and when it was sold you received of the proceeds of sale. Subsequently, a property at Alma Avenue, Laverton was purchased by your parents, the Title being registered in the name of your father and yourself. They purchased a car for you and provided you with other financial assistance.

At the time that your parents were murdered you were separated from your wife and your two children and you were living with your girlfriend, Jenny Rinnan in her home at Heidelberg. You had been retrenched from the Victorian Railways in 1993 and since then had not been in gainful employ. You were in receipt of Unemployment Benefits. No evidence was placed before the jury as to your life style or as to how you supported yourself. Some evidence which threw light on such matters was excluded by agreement between the Crown and your legal representatives in the course of the previous trial in which the jury was discharged prior to the completion of final addresses by counsel.

Your father had been ill for some time. He underwent surgery for bowel cancer and following such surgery used a colostomy bag. He was, it appears on the evidence, cancer free at the time of his death although he was in fairly frail health and needed walking sticks. You were a regular visitor at your parents’ home assisting in changing your father’s stoma every four or five days. You continued to irregularly stay overnight in your bedroom at your parents’ home.

For some time prior to their death you had found it a burden to look after your parents. Prior to their deaths, you had spoken about them in an unkindly and resentful manner. On one occasion you had referred to your father as a…

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 [2003] VSC 164
Case: [2003] VSC 164
Decision Date: 22 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Russo was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Russo, was convicted of murdering his parents. The appeal before the Court concerned the sentencing aspect of the conviction, specifically the length of the sentence imposed on the appellant. Russo had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The legal issues before the Court revolved around the principles of sentencing for murder and whether the non-parole period was excessive given the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the non-parole period was too severe, taking into account his age at the time of the offence, his background, and his remorse. The Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the gravity of the crime.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need to ensure general deterrence and the protection of society. It examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the decision in R v Zecevic. The Court also took into account the principles of proportionality and the need to balance the interests of the victim, the community, and the offender. After a thorough analysis, the Court concluded that the non-parole period was excessive and ordered a reduction to 20 years.

Orders