R v Tofilau - [2004] VSC 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1440 of 2002

THE QUEEN

LEMALUOFUIFATU ALIPAPA TOFILAU

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22-26, 29-30 September, 1-3, 6-10, 13-16 October 2003, 19 January 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 January 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tofilau
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 13

---

Murder – sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I. Hayden	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Alipapa Tofilau, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Belinda Romeo at Prahran on Sunday 20 June 1999.

During the weeks prior to the day in question you had enjoyed a friendship and sexual relationship with Ms Romeo. Indeed it is your evidence that you stayed at her flat on the preceding Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights.

Whether this be the fact or not I accept that the relationship had been a relatively close one for a period of time, but from Ms Romeo's point of view had become one that she desired to bring to an end. I also note that it was not a relationship which either party appears to have treated as involving an exclusive commitment.

On the Saturday morning of 19 June you travelled from Ms Romeo's flat in Prahran to Box Hill in order to play rugby. After the game you celebrated winning by drinking first at Box Hill and then at the Northcote Rugby Club.

During the course of the evening you made phone calls to the deceased and it is your evidence that it was agreed you would see her at the Bridge Club Hotel.

In any event, when you arrived at the Bridge Club towards midnight the deceased was already present with a girlfriend. The deceased had spent that afternoon with another man at her flat but had left him sleeping while she went out for some hours.

During the course of the evening at the hotel the deceased and another young woman, with whom you were also at that time conducting an active sexual relationship, jointly approached, confronted, and then turned away from you. You continued socialising with other acquaintances.

The deceased left the Bridge Club some time later and went home to the other man who was still at her flat. You stayed at the Bridge Club until it closed at approximately 7.00 am You then went on to a souvlaki shop in Bridge Road and then travelled via Carlton and Footscray to St Albans.

At St Albans you drank with two other men in a garage at a friend's house. You had purchased Bourbon and Coke for this purpose.

In the late afternoon you were given a lift to the corner of Punt and Commercial Roads, Prahran. You then rang Ms Romeo from a phone box outside a milk bar and obtained access to her flat.

Shortly thereafter…

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 Tofilau

Details

AGLC: R v Tofilau [2004] VSC 13
Case: [2004] VSC 13
Decision Date: 22 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Tofilau, the appellant was convicted of the murder of the victim and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years. The matter came before the court of criminal appeal to review the sentence imposed. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the appellant's background, and the principles of sentencing relevant to murder. The court also examined whether the primary judge had given adequate weight to the relevant mitigating factors.

The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing for murder. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, as it reflected the seriousness of the crime and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such an offence. The court further noted that the primary judge had given due consideration to the appellant's background and mitigating factors, and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime committed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years was upheld. The court affirmed the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence for murder.

Orders