R v Vazquez - [2012] VSC 593

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 00168 of 2011

THE QUEEN

RICHARD JAMES VAZQUEZ

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	18 June and 3 August 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 August 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vazquez
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 593

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Plea of guilty – Accused suffering from serious illness – Serious example of offending – 10 years imprisonment with minimum non-parole period of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Peter Rose SC Kieran Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Peter Morrissey SC	Thexton Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

In 2004, Steven Tosevski incurred a debt to Fadi Haddara of $1,600 over a drug purchase. By the first half of 2008, this had escalated to $3,000. Tosevski was gaoled on 15 July 2008. He had not paid this debt by this time.

Whilst he was in custody on 17 August 2008, a private garage was broken into and Mr Tosevski’s car was damaged. Windows were broken. The words “dog” and “rat” were sprayed onto the car. The debt was paid to Fadi Haddara shortly thereafter. The money was handed over by Mr Tosevski’s girlfriend, Peme Jeka.

Mr Tosevski was released from prison in late 2008. He was aggrieved by the damage to his car which was apparently assessed at approximately $15,000. He blamed you for it. Your older sister is married to Fadi Haddara’s brother. You were close to Fadi Haddara and, according to the undisputed amended summary of prosecution opening, looked up to him as an older brother.

You and Mr Tosevski had been friends before his imprisonment. You fell out over this drug debt. Mr Tosevski made intermittent attempts to recover the cost from you of the damage to his car.

On 13 September 2010, he made another attempt. An arrangement was made to meet with your father at his business office at 12/2 Techno Park Drive, Williamstown. At 7.20am, your father called Mr Tosevski. That call lasted for 56 seconds. Mr Tosevski subsequently told Ms Jeka he was going to your father’s office to endeavour to recover money for the damage to his car.

Some time before 10.38am, you and your father travelled to his office in Techno Park Drive. He remained in his office and you secreted yourself in a small adjacent storeroom. Your sawn-off double barrel shotgun had previously been hidden in that room.

At 10.38am, Mr Tosevski parked his car and walked towards 2 Techno Park Drive. He approached and entered your father’s office – number 12. He was unarmed. A verbal argument between Mr Tosevski and your father ensued. You heard raised voices.

You entered the room. Mr Tosevski turned towards you. You raised your firearm at a range of a metre or less and shot him in the head, killing him instantly. You or your father on your behalf then placed two…

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 Vazquez

Details

AGLC: R v Vazquez [2012] VSC 593
Case: [2012] VSC 593
Decision Date: 14 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Vazquez, was charged with murder and subsequently pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Vazquez killed his partner in what he claimed was in defence of himself and others. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, Vazquez’s plea of guilty, and his serious medical condition.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, given it was a defensive homicide, and whether it should also consider Vazquez’s significant health issues. The court also needed to assess whether a substantial discount from the usual sentence for manslaughter was warranted due to his plea of guilty and the mitigating factor of his illness. Additionally, the court had to balance these factors with the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent and to reflect community standards regarding the gravity of the crime.

The court found that, despite the mitigating factors, the offence was a serious example of manslaughter. The court held that the plea of guilty and Vazquez’s serious medical condition warranted some discount from the usual sentence. However, it was determined that the sentence should still serve as a strong deterrent and reflect community standards. Ultimately, the court sentenced Vazquez to 10 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 7 years. This decision balanced the mitigating factors with the need to uphold the seriousness of the crime and ensure public protection.

Orders