R v Spina - [2003] VSC 296

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1472 of 2002

THE QUEEN

NICOLA SPINA

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3,4, 7-11, 14 – 16 April and 14 August 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 August 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Spina
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 296

---

Crime – sentence – murder – two counts – unlawful imprisonment – threat to kill - relevant considerations.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. S. Pullen	Kay Robertson Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. M. Perry and Ms. D. Rasheva	John De Santo & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

The convictions

Nicola Spina has been convicted of the murder of his wife Maria Spina and the murder of his mother-in-law Giovanna Persico. He has also been convicted of unlawful imprisonment and threatening to kill his brother-in-law, Faustino Persico.

Facts

On 23 October 2001 at about 1.10 am Nicola Spina was intercepted by the police in Police Road, Mulgrave not far from his home at 31 Police Road, Mulgrave. He was driving his Toyota Land Cruiser. In the rear of the vehicle the police found the bodies of Maria Spina and Giovanna Persico.

In interviews with the police and a demonstration to the police, he acknowledged that he had in fact killed both women at his home at 31 Police Road, Mulgrave. In essence, his account to the police was that his wife had not been well and on Saturday, 20 October 2001 he had brought her mother to her at their house at 31 Police Road, Mulgrave. It is clear that his relationship with his wife was volatile at best and not happy at the time and that he did not get on well with his mother-in-law. Nonetheless, he claimed to the police that they had had an amicable day and evening and that he went to bed while his wife and mother-in-law sat up and watched television. He told the police that he had been woken at about 2.00 am by a punch from his wife. He then described to the police his resistance to his wife’s attack, her calling to her mother for help, her mother arriving and joining in the attack and both of them making statements to the effect that they were going to finish him off. He claimed that in the course of the fight that occurred in the bedroom, he somehow bashed the heads of the two women into the wall and asserted that it was that which had killed them both. To the police he asserted that he had acted at all times in self defence. In light of the jury verdict, that defence was negated by the Crown. I am satisfied that the jury would have been satisfied that it was not a self-defence situation. In the case of Giovanna Persico, an elderly lady, Nicola Spina himself admitted that she could offer little resistance. The issue of provocation…

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 Spina

Details

AGLC: R v Spina [2003] VSC 296
Case: [2003] VSC 296
Decision Date: 14 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spina involved the defendant, Spina, who was charged with multiple offences, including two counts of murder, unlawful imprisonment, and threatening to kill. The matter was heard in the relevant higher court, where the trial judge determined the appropriate sentence for Spina's convictions. Spina had been found guilty of the crimes, and the court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and relevant sentencing principles.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Spina, considering the gravity of the crimes committed, including the two counts of murder, unlawful imprisonment, and the threat to kill. The court needed to balance various factors, such as the culpability of the offender, the circumstances of the offences, and the need for deterrence and retribution. Additionally, the court had to consider any mitigating factors that might have an impact on the severity of the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the various aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case. The court recognised the heinous nature of the crimes, particularly the two counts of murder, and the significant harm caused to the victims. The court also noted the defendant's lack of remorse and the premeditated nature of the offences. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be a lengthy term of imprisonment, ensuring that the punishment reflected the seriousness of the crimes and served as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar conduct.

The final orders of the court mandated that Spina be sentenced to a specified term of imprisonment for each of the offences, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the gravity of the crimes, the need for deterrence, and the protection of society when determining the appropriate penalty for such serious offences.

Orders