R v Sablic
[2002] VSC 452
•21 October 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1461 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| ANTON SABLIC |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 - 8, 11 October 2002 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 October 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Anton Sablic | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 452 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – One-sided assault outside hotel resulting in death – Accused and deceased alcohol-affected – 8 years imprisonment – 5 years non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr G Horgan S.C. and Mr R Gibson | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr A Shwartz | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Anton Sablic. You have been found guilty by a jury of manslaughter, arising from the killing by you of Hugo Angel at Footscray in October 2001. That same jury found you not guilty of the murder of the deceased.
Both you and the deceased had for some years been occasional customers at the Footscray Hotel. You were not acquaintances. On the night of Saturday, 13 October 2001, the two of you were drinking separately at the hotel. Both of you had had a lot to drink. Blood alcohol tests were carried out later. Around 1 a.m. on the Sunday morning, the deceased’s blood alcohol level would have been in excess of .3. Your level was probably around half that.
Shortly after 1 a.m., the deceased went to leave the hotel. You were sitting near the door by which he went to leave. As the deceased passed by you, he said something to you. You went out of the hotel with him. You walked next to him for a few steps. You then punched him to the head. Your first punch caused him to lurch to one side against a car. You followed the first punch with a flurry of others. The last of the blows was delivered shortly before his head hit the pavement - hard. That was not enough for you. You took a step to the side. You then kicked the deceased in the head. You took a few seconds to take in what you had done. You then strolled back into the hotel and continued drinking. You called for no ambulance or other assistance for the deceased. He may or may not have benefited from early assistance. He had suffered serious head injuries. He would not recover from them. He was pronounced dead the next day.
Some hours later, you were interviewed by the police. You chose to tell them a lot of things. You said that you reacted to the deceased calling you a poofter. You said that the deceased had swung a punch at you. You said that you had only acted in self defence. You said that you helped the deceased down so he did not hit his head. You said that you called an ambulance. Some of those things were blatant lies, and demonstrably so. The hotel had a security camera. It was pointing to where you attacked the deceased. Viewing the video makes clear the savagery of your assaults, and the baseness of your lies.
Those events outside the hotel took place in a very short period of time. You did not intend to kill the deceased or to cause really serious injury. But to act as you did was to act unlawfully and dangerously. The deceased was a smaller, older and more intoxicated man. Your attack on him was callous, senseless and cowardly. Excessive drinking had a part to play in it being so. But you chose to drink to excess then. You have made that same choice on other occasions. You must pay the consequences of that choice. General and special deterrence must be considerations affecting the sentence that I impose. You have twice before had to appear before the courts as a consequence of choosing to act aggressively.
I have read the victim impact statement prepared by Barbara Giampaolo. She writes of the extreme pain and of the deep sense of loss, not only to her but to her daughter and son by the deceased. The two pages are beautifully written and profoundly moving.
You are 27 years of age. You were born in January 1975. You were raised in a close and supportive family by parents who were hard-working. You were given a good education, despite having intellectual limitations. I have noted what Mr Bernard Healey has had to say in that regard. In your youth, you showed an aptitude at sport. Your work record has only been patchy. You have shown a lack of motivation. You married in your early twenties, and have a young daughter. It seems that the burden of raising your daughter has had to fall almost completely on your wife. She chose to separate from you because of your unwillingness to bear responsibility. You have too often chosen to spend your time and money in drinking alcohol and smoking pot.
There are several mitigatory considerations. You have from a very early stage made known your willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter. There are indications of remorse. You have undergone courses in prison. You still have a supportive wife. There are others who will provide support, including your sister and your employers, Michael and Julie Baker. I was impressed by what was said by all four of those who spoke on your behalf on the plea. I am satisfied that the period of potential parole should be longer than I would normally set.
I declare that you have served to today 372 days in pre-sentence detention. I direct that that be entered in the court records. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 8 years. I fix a non-parole period of 5 years.
0
0
0