R v Stavreski - [2004] VSC 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1487 of 2003

THE QUEEN

VANGEL STAVRESKI

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 February 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R -v- Stavreski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 16

---

SENTENCE – Father defends himself and mother from daughter's attack -Provocation/manslaughter – Excessive self-defence – Exceptional circumstances – Sentence wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Elston	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I. McIvor	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

On Monday 2 February 2004, the accused pleaded guilty to having killed his daughter Violeta Stavreski on 5 August 2002 at their family home in Foxglove Place, Epping.

Some 30 years ago Vangel and Milla Stavreski came to Australia. At the time of the offence they were living at 2 Foxglove Place in Epping with their three children, John aged 27, Nik aged 26 and their daughter Violeta also aged 26.

Both Mr and Mrs Stavreski worked as cleaners at the Austin Hospital in Heidelberg. On Monday 5 August 2002, before leaving for work Mrs Stavreski had a strange conversation with her daughter. Upon informing her daughter that she was cooking meat that evening Violeta responded that she was not angry with her mother that she was cooking meat. As there was no particular day on which the family ate meat Mrs Stavreski regarded her daughter's response as odd, but gave it no further consideration at that time.

At about 9.30 p.m. that evening Mr and Mrs Stavreski returned home from work. The cars belonging to both their son John and their daughter Violeta were parked in the driveway. Mr Stavreski made himself a cup of coffee and then went to the shed in the rear yard to do some hobby work. Mrs Stavreski noticed that the cooking pot which she had left on the stove in preparation for the evening meal was missing. Having checked the boys' rooms she went to Violeta's room and opened the door. She then noticed that there was blood smeared on the wall. The room was in disarray. The blood smears and the state of disarray is apparent from the photographs in Exhibit 1. There was a broken picture frame on the bed which had contained a photograph of Violeta and her boyfriend. The cooking pot was also on the bed.

Mrs Stavreski called out to her daughter who was not visible. Her daughter responded saying thank you and made some other odd comment. Upon looking behind the bedroom door Mrs Stavreski observed Violeta kneeling on the floor. She had a cloth or rag covering her body. Violeta said to her mother "Do you love me?" and her mother said "Well of course". Violeta then said "Well if you love me you will come inside and I would like to kiss you. Kneel down beside me so I can kiss…

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 Stavreski

Details

AGLC: R v Stavreski [2004] VSC 16
Case: [2004] VSC 16
Decision Date: 6 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stavreski arose in the Victorian Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Stavreski, was convicted of manslaughter following an incident in which he defended himself and his wife from an attack by his daughter. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Stavreski, who claimed that his actions were a result of excessive self-defence under provocation. The primary issue before the court was whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to warrant a wholly suspended sentence, despite the serious nature of the offence.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the nature and extent of the provocation, the adequacy of the appellant’s defence, and whether the sentence should reflect the exceptional circumstances of the case. The court considered the principles of self-defence and the doctrine of provocation, alongside the need for a sentence that would be just and appropriate given the unique facts of the case. The appellant argued that his actions were a reasonable response to an immediate and severe threat, and that the sentence should be suspended entirely due to the exceptional nature of the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but recognised the exceptional circumstances surrounding the case. The appellant's actions were driven by a desperate need to protect himself and his wife from a violent and unprovoked attack by his daughter. The court found that the appellant’s response, while excessive, was understandable given the severity of the threat. Consequently, the court decided that a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate, reflecting the exceptional nature of the circumstances and the appellant’s immediate response to protect his family.

Orders