R v Smart - [2018] VSC 568

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0144

THE QUEEN
v
RYAN CHARLES SMART	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 August 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Smart
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 568

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Parity – Nine years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of six years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Mr J Cain, Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Dempsey	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Ryan Charles Smart, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Ramis Jonuzi on 25 October 2017. The killing took place at premises at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East, in which Mr Jonuzi was residing at the time with you and two other men. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years.

Ramis Jonuzi

Mr Jonuzi was 36 years old at the time of his death. He was the only son of Qemal and Nevrije Jonuzi and had three sisters named Lindita, Naime and Afradita. He had worked principally as a bricklayer during his working life. After the end of an eight year relationship with Andrew Ross, Mr Jonuzi returned to live with his parents in Tarneit in June 2017. He confided in his sister Naime that he had issues with drug use. She took him to seek medical help.

Circumstances leading up to the crime

You and a man named Craig Levy (‘Levy’) had resided at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East since 2011. You and Levy had rented the premises from a man named Bryce Gaton, and Levy was in charge of receiving rent from the other tenants and then paying the rent due to Mr Gaton. As of the day of Mr Jonuzi’s death, rent was in arrears by $604. Gaton had served a notice to quit on you and Levy due to unpaid rent and ongoing breaches of the rental agreement.

A third person named Jason Colton (‘Colton’) had resided at the premises for some months leading up to 25 October 2017. He lived in the garage at the property.

You and Levy occupied separate bedrooms in the house. A third bedroom inside the house was placed by Levy on Airbnb. In October 2017, Mr Jonuzi moved out of his parents’ home and commenced employment at a restaurant. On 11 October he confided in a friend that he was not going very well, was sleeping in his car, and needed to find accommodation. The friend helped him to find a place to stay through Airbnb. A booking was made for Mr Jonuzi to stay at 14 Alexander Street, Brighton East for the period 15 to 17 October 2017 for a total cost of $102. On 15 October 2017, Mr Jonuzi moved into the spare bedroom in your house. He had paid for three days’ accommodation in advance.

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 Smart

Details

AGLC: R v Smart [2018] VSC 568
Case: [2018] VSC 568
Decision Date: 26 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smart involved the defendant, Smart, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for the crime, with Smart seeking a non-parole period of six years, which was lower than the nine years' imprisonment suggested by the prosecution. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining a fair and just sentence in light of the plea and the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, particularly in relation to the principle of parity. The court needed to consider the severity of the crime, the culpability of the defendant, and the need to ensure sentences for similar crimes were consistent. Additionally, the court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the principles of mercy and rehabilitation.

In delivering its decision, the court carefully considered the principle of parity, comparing Smart's case with similar cases to ensure consistency. The court acknowledged the seriousness of manslaughter but also recognised mitigating factors in Smart's plea of guilty. Ultimately, the court decided that a nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years was appropriate. This decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account both the need for punishment and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that Smart be sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This decision was based on a comprehensive consideration of the legal principles involved, the specific circumstances of the crime, and the plea of guilty.

Orders