R v Skura - [2003] VSC 290

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1451 of 2003

THE QUEEN

DOROTHY MARIE SKURA

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 July 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dorothy Marie Skura
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 290

---

CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - incitement to murder - plea of guilty - expression of forgiveness from victim - remorse - psychological disorder - whether inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence – forensic sample – discretionary considerations - s 464ZF Crimes Act 1958

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Morgan-Payler QC with Mr D Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Lasry QC	Robert Stary & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Dorothy Maree Skura, you have pleaded guilty to one count of incitement to murder, such incitement being your attempt, in March this year, to have another person murder your husband on your behalf in consideration of your paying him $25,000. It is now my duty to sentence you according to law and to rule upon an application by a member of the police force that you undergo a forensic procedure for the taking of a body sample for the provision of material for the DNA database, pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958.

I can dispose of the second matter shortly. The power of the Court to order a forensic procedure as sought in this case is a discretionary power to be exercised upon appropriate criteria in respect of certain scheduled offences. That a person has been convicted of a scheduled offence is not enough on its own to trigger the discretion. If it were, there would be no discretion, an order would follow conviction automatically. In this case Mr Morgan-Payler, Q.C., who appeared to prosecute, can point to no discretionary considerations as to why an order should be made. Accordingly, no order will be made.

I turn then to the question of sentence.

You were born in Canada on 3 August 1965. You are now 37 years of age. You married your husband, Gerry Skura, in December 1999 in Vancouver, British Columbia, having met him some years earlier by reason of your both having been employed in the grain industry. You have a daughter, by a previous relationship, who is now 12 years of age. Although your husband has never adopted this daughter, she has been treated as a child of your marriage and is about to return to Canada with your husband, with your consent, to be cared for there by him.

In April 2002 you, your husband and your daughter settled, at least temporarily, in Melbourne, your husband having been transferred from Canada to Australia in the course of his employment with an international grain company. You were not happy with this move; you had no friends or relatives in Australia and were unable to obtain employment. Your husband accepted this transfer which, although not actually…

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 Skura

Details

AGLC: R v Skura [2003] VSC 290
Case: [2003] VSC 290
Decision Date: 29 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Skura, the defendant pleaded guilty to incitement to murder. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, who had a psychological disorder, was involved in a plot to murder his wife's father, an act for which he was found guilty. The victim expressed forgiveness for the defendant and no sentence of imprisonment was sought by the victim or her family.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the expression of forgiveness from the victim, the defendant's remorse, and his psychological disorder. The court was also required to consider whether imprisonment was an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence and whether a forensic sample should be taken. The court also needed to consider discretionary considerations under section 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958.

The court found that the defendant's expression of remorse and the victim's forgiveness were significant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the defendant's psychological disorder and the lack of any previous criminal history were mitigating factors. The court found that imprisonment was not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence in this case and decided not to take a forensic sample. The court also considered the discretionary considerations under section 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958 and found that they did not apply in this case. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of community service and supervision orders, rather than imprisonment.

The court ordered that the defendant serve a total of 200 hours of community service and be subject to supervision orders for a period of two years. The court also ordered that no forensic sample be taken. The court's decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case, including the expression of forgiveness from the victim and the defendant's psychological disorder.

Orders