R v Traycevska - [2010] VSC 270

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1639 of 2009

THE QUEEN

PETRA TRAYCEVSKA

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 June 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Traycevska
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 270

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Incitement to commit murder 2 counts – Section 321G Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) – Guilty Plea – Accused’s son murdered - First intended victim acquitted of murder – Second intended victim father of first intended victim – Undercover operative – Sentencing considerations – Applicability of Verdins principles.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. Trapnell SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Sutherland	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

On 23 November 2009, you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to two counts of incitement to murder before me in that you did, at Altona Meadows between 22 July 2009 and 24 July 2009, incite “Mick Farnworth” to murder Natalie Oscianko and Andrew Oscianko respectively.

You were charged on 25 July 2009 and committed for trial to this Court on 11 November 2007 without any witnesses being called. You indicated an intention to plead guilty at the committal.

You have a number of prior convictions for dishonesty offences which are not particularly relevant to my task here.

The maximum penalty for incitement to murder is life imprisonment pursuant to s 321I (1) paragraph BA of the Crimes Act.

Background to Offence

On 17 September 2007, the body of a deceased male, Michael Traycevska, your son, was located on the grass verge beside Hume Road, Laverton North. Michael Traycevska had been murdered by the tightening of a ligature around his neck. Following investigation, police arrested Christopher Dowsett and Natalie Oscianko, your son’s de facto partner, in respect of the murder of Michael. Dowsett made full and frank admissions with respect to the murder and offered to cooperate with the police. He gave an undertaking to give evidence at Oscianko’s trial. Oscianko made a no comment record of interview. Dowsett in due course pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced to 14 years with a non parole period of 11½ years by this Court on 23 March 2009.

Oscianko's trial commenced on 3 April 2009 and resulted in her being acquitted of the murder of Michael Traycevska. When the verdict was announced there was an obvious degree of anger from the family and friends of the deceased, yourself included.

In July 2009, based on gathered intelligence, investigators from the Altona North Criminal Investigation Unit commenced “Operation Coffer”. This operation related to efforts by a member of your family to incite the murder of Natalie Oscianko. On 22 July 2009, you met with a police covert operative named “Mick”.

During that meeting, you stated the following to covert operative “Mick”:

· your son Michael was a good son and had been murdered;

· his girlfriend Natalie had killed him…

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 Traycevska

Details

AGLC: R v Traycevska [2010] VSC 270
Case: [2010] VSC 270
Decision Date: 17 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Traycevska, the accused was convicted of incitement to commit murder in relation to two counts under section 321G of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The accused, who had previously been acquitted in relation to the murder of her son, admitted to instigating the murder of the father of her deceased son. The case involved an undercover operative who played a role in the events leading to the conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was the applicability of the Verdins principles in the sentencing of the accused. The Verdins principles, derived from the case of Verdins v R, are used to determine the appropriate penalty for incitement to murder. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the accused's culpability, and the extent of her involvement in the commission of the crime. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the circumstances under which the crime was committed, including the involvement of an undercover operative.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the principles in Verdins applied to the present case. The court emphasised the seriousness of incitement to murder and the harm caused by the accused's actions. It was noted that the accused had a premeditated plan to kill the father of her deceased son and had actively sought to carry out this plan. The court took into account the unique circumstances of the case, including the undercover operative's involvement, which did not mitigate the accused's culpability. Ultimately, the court found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence reflective of the principles established in Verdins.

The court ordered that the accused be sentenced to imprisonment, with specific considerations given to the Verdins principles. The exact length of the sentence was not detailed in the text, but the court's reasoning indicated a significant penalty commensurate with the gravity of the incitement to murder. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accountability for those who incite others to commit such heinous acts, even in the context of complex and unusual circumstances.

Orders