Legal Research
Cases
R v Svetina

R v Svetina

Case [2011] VSC 392 22 August 2011

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

SCR 2011 0061

THE QUEEN

ZLATKO SVETINA

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20–23, 27-30 June, 11 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Svetina
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 392

---
REASONS FOR SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Attack on offender’s elderly father – Context of family dispute – Genuine remorse – Sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Walsh	Gleesons

HIS HONOUR:

Zlatko Svetina, you have been convicted of the defensive homicide of your father, Tomislav Svetina, and it is for me to sentence you.

The facts

At the time of your father’s death, he was 74 years of age and not particularly well. He had suffered from bowel cancer in the past and had been injured as the result of a major motor accident. He had ischaemic heart disease and acute gout and he was afflicted with a tremor which to some extent was controlled by medication but left him unable to undo or open things unassisted.

He was born in Croatia, where he met and married your mother, Zdenka Svetina, in 1956. You, their first-born child, were born in 1957. Your brother, Zdenko (also known as John) was born in 1962. In 1971, the family moved to Australia. Your father had qualified in Croatia as an electrical fitter and he continued to work full time in that capacity in Melbourne until partial retirement at the age of 55. Thereafter, he occupied his time with investing in shares, which was not particularly successful, handyman-type electrical work and one-off small scale switchboard construction projects. Your mother and father separated in December 2009 after a breakdown in their relationship that had begun to develop following your father’s partial retirement. As your mother said in evidence, being together all the time was just too much.

In December 2009, you were 52 years of age and divorced with two children of your own and a stepchild from the marriage. When your marriage broke down in 1995, your mother paid out your ex-wife’s share of the marital property and thereby enabled you to continue to live in your former marital home at 32 Beard Street, Doncaster. That property was then signed over into your parents’ names, in part to provide them with security for the moneys advanced to pay out your ex-wife, and in part to prevent further claims being made against it.

Your parents also owned a house at 12 Amelia Crescent, Doncaster. At some point, you moved out of the Beard Street home, which was sold, and took up residence at the 12 Amelia Crescent house. At that time, half the sale proceeds of the Beard Street home went to…

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 Svetina

Details

AGLC: R v Svetina [2011] VSC 392
Case: [2011] VSC 392
Decision Date: 22 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Svetina was heard before the Court of Appeal, where the defendant appealed against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his father. Svetina, the appellant, had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his elderly father, who was attacked during a family dispute. The appellant raised several grounds for appeal, primarily focused on the length and appropriateness of his sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive, whether it adequately reflected the circumstances of the case, and if there were any errors in the sentencing process.

The court considered the nature of the offence, which was a defensive homicide occurring in the context of a family dispute. It examined the appellant's state of mind, including his genuine remorse and the impact of the family dispute on his actions. The court also weighed the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the offence and the mitigating factors present. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were any procedural errors in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction in sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that while the appellant's actions were serious, the sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years was appropriate given the context of the offence and the mitigating factors. The court acknowledged the genuine remorse expressed by the appellant and the challenging circumstances of the family dispute. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and did not contain any procedural errors.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years was affirmed.

Orders