R v Stefanato - [2023] NSWSC 73

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stefanato [2023] NSWSC 73
Hearing dates: 10 February 2023
Decision date: 10 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 13 years and 7 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – intent to kill – defenceless deceased shot with rifle at close range to the head – senseless and brutal – offender aged 75 – no significant record – good character – genuinely remorseful – reductions for plea of guilty and assistance

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
R v Ceniccola [2011] NSWSC 302

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Vittorio Stefanato (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Costello (Crown)
N Broadbent (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 296098/2021
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Vittorio Stefanato has pleaded guilty to the murder of Christine Neilan at Lightning Ridge on or about 8 January 2020. He has also pleaded guilty to a related summary offence of possessing a .22 calibre rifle without a licence or permit at Lightning Ridge on 15 October 2021.
Murder is a crime punishable by life imprisonment. There is also a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The rifle possession offence has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years but because it came to this Court as a related summary offence the sentence may not exceed 2 years.

Agreed facts as to the offending

The offender lived in Lightning Ridge and occupied three opal mining claims which were identified as lots 76, 77 and 78 in a particular deposited plan. Various forms of dwellings were on each of the lots, which were referred to as his “camp”. One of the structures was called “Amigo’s Castle” and was something of a tourist attraction.
Certain people in Lighting Ridge, including intravenous drug users, harassed the offender for money both before and after the murder. In the period December 2019 to July 2021, he paid out more than $50,000 to such people. Apprehended violence orders were obtained in respect of a number of them.
The grounds for an application made by police for an AVO against Melissa Morris in July 2020 stated:

“For a considerable length of time there have been ongoing issues with a group of individuals in the Lightning Ridge community attending the local tourist attraction Amigo’s Castle [the offender’s camp] and hassling [the offender] for money. Such is the harassment and bullying tactics employed by these people, that local police are aware of the situation and have been encouraging [the offender] to contact police when these regular incidents occur. Typically these people hound [the offender] for money to the point that he often hands over cash (ranging between $50 and $200) just to be left alone… [It]…

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 Stefanato

Details

AGLC: R v Stefanato [2023] NSWSC 73
Case: [2023] NSWSC 73
Decision Date: 10 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stefanato involved the defendant, Stefanato, who was charged with the murder of an individual he shot at close range to the head with a rifle. The dispute arose from the severity and nature of the crime, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed considering various mitigating factors. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, taking into account the defendant's plea of guilty, his age, lack of prior criminal record, good character, and genuine remorse. The court also had to consider the brutal and senseless nature of the crime, which involved the killing of a defenceless individual.

The court found that while the offence was of the most serious kind, the defendant's age, good character, and remorse were significant mitigating factors. The court also considered the defendant's plea of guilty and his level of assistance in the investigation and prosecution. The court applied these factors to reduce the sentence appropriately. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, recognising the gravity of the offence but also the mitigating factors present in this case.

Orders