R v Vinaccia - [2019] VSC 683

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0110

Between:

THE QUEEN

-and-

JESSE VINACCIA Accused

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vinaccia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 683

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence following trial — Child homicide — Accused killed his girlfriend’s infant son (aged three-and-a-half months) by violent shaking/handling — No external injuries — Offence classifiable as either unlawful and dangerous act or criminal negligence or both — Objective gravity lower than many other instances of child homicide or manslaughter of young/infant children — Extensive admissions made in record of interview (“ROI”) with police — Trial run sparely — Remorse apparent in ROI — No prior convictions for violence — Allegation that accused, on a separate occasion, shook his own infant son not accepted — Accused had history of positive behaviour towards deceased — Accused 22 at time of offence — Delay of three years and nine months between offence and sentence — Accused used delay wisely — Accused likely to suffer hardship in prison and beyond via odium and fear — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Sentence of eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five-and-a-half years.

---

Appearances	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Ms K Churchill	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Casement with Mr S Burt	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On the evening of 23 January 2016, Kaleb Baylis-Clarke, an infant aged only three-and-a-half months, was found unresponsive in his cot by Jesse Vinaccia, the 22-year-old adult who was caring for him at the time. Mr Vinaccia was in a recently-formed relationship with Kaleb’s mother Erin Baylis-Clarke, who was aged 21. He had had Kaleb in his sole care for the previous two hours, while Ms Baylis-Clarke was at work waiting tables at a local restaurant. Mr Vinaccia contacted Ms Baylis-Clarke and said, “Kaleb’s not breathing, what do I do?” She told him to ring triple-zero, which he did. He then administered CPR as directed by the operator until emergency services arrived.

Kaleb was resuscitated by ambulance officers and taken to the Monash Medical Centre, where he was placed on life support. Medical examination revealed that, while there were no external injuries, Kaleb had very serious brain injuries and bleeding in both retinas. Expert medical opinion was to the effect that these injuries must have been caused by violent shaking causing rapid acceleration and/or deceleration of his head, with or without impact.

Over the next few days, when speaking to others, including doctors at the hospital, Mr Vinaccia said nothing directly about his own behaviour that might explain Kaleb’s parlous state. Even when, on 26 January, Ms Baylis-Clarke asked him directly whether he did anything that might explain Kaleb’s condition, Mr Vinaccia denied shaking or being rough with him.

Police formally interviewed Mr Vinaccia soon…

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 Vinaccia

Details

AGLC: R v Vinaccia [2019] VSC 683
Case: [2019] VSC 683
Decision Date: 14 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vinaccia, the appellant was convicted of the manslaughter of his girlfriend's infant son, who was three-and-a-half months old at the time of his death. The deceased suffered fatal injuries due to violent shaking or handling, with no external injuries. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence following the appellant's trial, taking into account the various mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the classification of the offence, the appropriate sentence to impose considering the gravity of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances, and the relevance of the delay in sentencing. The court had to consider whether the offence was best classified as an unlawful and dangerous act, criminal negligence, or both. The court also had to weigh the objective gravity of the offence against other instances of child homicide or manslaughter of young or infant children, as well as the appellant's admissions, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court found that the objective gravity of the offence was lower than many other instances of child homicide or manslaughter of young or infant children. The appellant made extensive admissions in his record of interview with the police, and his remorse was apparent. The appellant had no prior convictions for violence and had a history of positive behaviour towards the deceased. The court also found that the allegation that the appellant, on a separate occasion, shook his own infant son was not accepted. The court took into account the delay in sentencing, which was three years and nine months, and noted that the appellant had used the delay wisely. The court also considered the likely hardship the appellant would suffer in prison and beyond via odium and fear, as well as his good prospects of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court sentenced the appellant to eight-and-a-half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five-and-a-half years.

This decision provides guidance on the appropriate sentence to impose in cases of child homicide or manslaughter of young or infant children, taking into account the various mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case. It highlights the importance of considering the objective gravity of the offence, the accused's personal circumstances, and the delay in sentencing when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders