R v Samaras - [2019] VSC 120

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0120

THE QUEEN
v
STEVEN CON SAMARAS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 March 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Samaras
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 120

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty - Unintentional shooting of domestic partner during course of a struggle – Handgun deliberately discharged by accused in close proximity to deceased – No attempt to seek medical assistance – Avoidance of authorities and disposal of firearm – Extent of remorse – Serious example of crime of manslaughter – 11 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 8 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Diana Piekusis QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Chris Pearson	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Steven Con Samaras, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Tamara Ann Turner on 6 June 2016[1]. Ms Turner died as a result of being shot by you with a handgun in a caravan which was located in a remote area of the Hattah-Kulkyne National Park in the Mallee area of northern Victoria. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years. You have also admitted prior convictions contained in a criminal record filed in this matter.
[1]The indictment alleges the crime occurred on 5 or 6 June 2016. Your account, however, was of the shooting having occurred at about 2.00 am on 6 June 2016.

Tamara Ann Turner

Tamara Ann Turner was born on 27 October 1966 in New York, USA, one of five siblings. After completing secondary school she formed a relationship with Chuck Smith and married him, having two children with him, Chuck Smith III, and Natasha King, both of whom attended the plea hearing via video link from the United States, and both of whom made victim impact statements to which I will refer later. After the break up of her marriage with Mr Smith, Ms Turner had other relationships, including, in the year leading up to her departure from the United States, one with a man who owned a firearms dealership in Missouri. Before she moved to Australia, Ms Turner was employed as a cleaner.

At the time of her death, she was 49 years of age.

Your background

You were born on 8 July 1968, and were therefore 47 at the time of the offence, and are now 50 years old.

You were educated in Melbourne to the Year 8 level, after which you helped in the operation of an amusement parlour in Brunswick run by your parents. You spent some years working as a car detailer, but were unemployed and in receipt of a disability pension after suffering an injury in 2015. At the time of the incident, you were largely financially supported by your parents.

Relationship with Ms Turner and lead-up to the…

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 Samaras

Details

AGLC: R v Samaras [2019] VSC 120
Case: [2019] VSC 120
Decision Date: 1 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the respondent, Samaras, was found guilty of manslaughter following the death of his domestic partner. The deceased, who was known to have a history of drug use, was fatally shot by the respondent during an altercation. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter, and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The prosecution argued for a substantial custodial sentence, given the gravity of the offence and the respondent’s actions following the incident.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter and the determination of an appropriate non-parole period. The court considered several factors, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the circumstances leading up to the shooting, the respondent’s lack of remorse, and his actions following the incident, such as avoiding authorities and disposing of the firearm. The court also took into account the impact of the offence on the deceased’s family.

The court found that the offence was a serious example of manslaughter, warranting a significant custodial sentence. The respondent’s lack of remorse and his attempt to avoid responsibility were noted as aggravating factors. The court also highlighted the respondent’s deliberate discharge of the handgun in close proximity to the deceased during a struggle. Considering these factors, the court sentenced the respondent to a total of 11 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message about the consequences of such reckless behaviour.

The court’s final orders were that the respondent be remanded in custody pending transfer to a correctional facility to serve his sentence. The respondent was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge and a fine. The court emphasised that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and serve as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar reckless behaviour.

Orders