R v Szitovszky - [2007] VSC 193

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2006

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER SZITOVSZKY

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7-9, 13-14, 16, 19-23, 26-30 March 2007, 2-3, 27 April 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Szitovsky
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 193

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Murder – Violent attack with axe – Maintains Innocence - Young offender – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Support of family - 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G.J. Steward with Mr T. Kassimatis	Galbally O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Christopher Szitovszky, on 3 April 2007 you were convicted of the crime of murder. The victim of the murder was your father, Peter Szitovszky. The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment.

At the time of your father’s murder you were living with your mother and father at 17 Xavier Drive, Wheelers Hill. Your older brother, Simon, also lived at that address but was at the time in Hungary.

In the early hours of the morning of 1 July 2004 neighbours heard an argument outside your house. Two of those neighbours saw a person with characteristics similar in some respects to you in the street, yelling and making hand gestures.

At approximately 6.00 am that morning you telephoned 000 and reported having discovered your father lying near the front door of your house. He was dead.

Your father was a taxi driver. The evidence given in your trial suggests that he had risen early and had left the house to go to his taxi, which was parked in the street.

An axe was lying across your father’s chest when police and ambulance officers attended the scene that morning. The evidence given at your trial revealed that your father had sustained 14 identifiable injuries to his neck and head and to his chest and abdomen. The injuries were consistent with the use of the axe as a weapon. The cause of death was multiple incised injuries to the neck and throat. The evidence given suggested five or six axe blows to the neck, four to the face (three of which were relatively superficial), and four to the chest and abdomen. The evidence was that death would have occurred quickly.

You pleaded not guilty at your trial. You have always maintained, and you continue to maintain, your innocence.

I am bound to sentence you on the basis of conclusions on the facts which are consistent with the jury’s verdict. In the circumstances it seems to me that I must proceed on the basis that you were the person heard by the neighbours and seen by two of them in the street that night, and that you were the person who dealt the blows with the axe which inflicted the injuries…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Szitovszky and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] VSC 193
Decision Date: 12 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Szitovszky, the accused, Szitovszky, was convicted of murder and faced sentencing by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, which involved a violent attack with an axe, as well as the defendant’s insistence on his innocence throughout the proceedings. The case also took into account the defendant’s age, his prospects for rehabilitation, and the support he received from his family.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder and the determination of a non-parole period. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the support from his family. The court also considered the defendant's claim of innocence, despite the conviction, which added complexity to the sentencing decision.

The court found that while the crime was severe, there were significant mitigating factors. The defendant was a young offender with good prospects for rehabilitation, and he had the support of his family. Taking all these factors into account, the court sentenced Szitovszky to 18 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. This sentence reflected a consideration of both the punishment for the crime and the potential for rehabilitation and support for the defendant.

Orders