R v Vlahos
[2013] VSC 171
•12 April 2013
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 0112 of 2012
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CON VLAHOS |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 March 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 April 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Vlahos | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VSC 171 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Jury trial – Verdict of guilty of one charge of murder, one charge of making a threat to kill and one charge of arson – Plead of guilty to one charge of attempted theft and one charge of theft – Serious offending – Murder of woman in presence of her 11 year old son – Threat to kill son – Arson to conceal crime – Spontaneous offending – Absence of remorse.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M. Rochford SC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J. Hannebery and Ms K. McKay | Haines and Polites |
HIS HONOUR:
Con Vlahos, on 19 March 2013 a jury found you guilty of five offences. They were the murder of Jacqueline Camilleri on 8 October 2011, the arson of premises at Unit 7, 32 Ambon Street Preston at the same time, threatening to kill GT at the same time and place and one count of attempted theft of a motor vehicle and one count of theft of a motor vehicle.
On 26 March 2013, I heard submissions from the prosecutor and counsel on your behalf as to what sentence should be imposed upon you. The maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for arson is ten years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence for making a threat to kill is ten years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence for theft and attempted theft is ten years’ imprisonment.
Circumstances of offending
Victor Georgiadis was a friend of yours, and he had been in a relationship with the deceased woman Jacqueline Camilleri at the time of these incidents. It was a difficult relationship.
On 7 October 2011, there had been conflict between Victor Georgiadis and Jacqueline Camilleri, as a result of which Victor Georgiadis was instructed by Jacqueline Camilleri to leave the premises at which he had been living. He complied. With some belongings, he then went out onto Crevelli Street, Preston to use a phone box and saw you. You were also there to use the phone box and had gone there by riding a bicycle.
As a result of a conversation between you and Victor Georgadis, the two of you went to your premises in Ambon Street, Preston. There, you and he used cocaine intravenously.
Some time later, probably at about 11.00pm that night, Jacqueline Camilleri arrived and she had with her, her son GT. [REDACTED] After Jacqueline Camilleri and GT entered the premises, GT went into another room to watch television and the rest of you began to use cocaine.
On the evidence given both by Victor Georgiadis and GT, which the jury clearly accepted, at some stage you came to the conclusion that Jacqueline Camilleri had stolen some of your cocaine. You became extremely excitable, making accusations of theft, particularly against Jacqueline Camilleri. At one point you instructed her to remove her clothes so that you could see whether in fact she had stolen the drugs or not. She complied with that direction and it was obvious that she did not have any drugs. In an effort to convince you that no theft had occurred Victor Georgiadis also removed some of his clothing. You then took control of a jug of hot water some of which you poured on her and also on Victor Georgiadis.
You then obtained a knife from the kitchen, and despite the efforts of Victor Georgiadis to intervene, you proceeded to stab Jacqueline Camilleri in the torso. During that part of the incident you also went up to GT and put the knife to his neck. It is that conduct that comprises the offence of making a threat to kill. In his evidence, GT gave a similar description to Victor Georgiadis of the way in which you placed the knife to his throat. The threat was that you would kill GT unless the drugs you thought had been stolen were produced. At that point, it appears that Victor Georgiadis intervened to try to stop you from threatening GT, and with him away from where Jacqueline Camilleri was, you then went to her and stabbed her about five times. After you had done that, you picked up the couch with her on it and threw her onto the floor. She was on her back and in her underwear still. You then jumped on her head and stabbed her again. The stab wounds and injuries to her left forehead were evident from the evidence of the pathologist at your trial.
By this stage, GT had left the premises after his mother had urged him to do so. Victor Georgiadis had knelt down to see whether there was any life in the body of Jacqueline Camilleri. There was none. He described you as then throwing papers and things around the area, and ultimately you lit a fire near where the body of Jacqueline Camilleri was lying. After the place caught fire, Victor Georgiadis went into a room to ensure that GT had left and then you and Victor Georgiadis left the building.
Once outside, you and Victor Georgiadis went through the Northland Shopping Centre and then through a creek. Because you were on foot, you attempted to break into a Ford panel van but failed. You later succeeded in stealing a Holden Commodore. That conduct is the subject of counts four and five, to which you did plead guilty at an early stage of the proceedings including in the presence of the jury panel at the commencement of this trial. Victor Georgiadis received an indemnity from prosecution for those offences on 12 February 2013 which was Exhibit B on your trial.
You then travelled in the stolen car with Victor Georgiadis to a flat in Eric Street, Preston occupied by a man called Jason Pesavento. In the course of the conversation with him you told him that you had just killed someone. After a period of time, you went to the premises of William Kershaw and whilst you were there the police arrived and you were placed under arrest.
The evidence of the pathologist who conducted the post mortem indicated that Jacqueline Camilleri died as a result of five stab wounds, which would have caused substantial blood loss. The autopsy also revealed that Ms Camilleri was deceased prior to the fire being lit.
As to the lighting of the fire, I am satisfied that it was done by you for the purpose of attempting to conceal your role in the death of Jacqueline Camilleri.
Victim Impact Statements
During the course of the plea, victim impact statements were produced on behalf of GT, Nick Camilleri, Daniel Basavanowicz, Ashley Camilleri, Natasha Oates, Teri Sari and Victor Georgiadis. Several of those statements were read. In addition, part of the material included the video presentation in relation to Jacqueline Camilleri which had been played at her funeral. These victim impact statements generate the usual frustration. The usual frustration is that the death of Jacqueline Camilleri was so unnecessary and in all likelihood the product of a problem that you have with illicit drugs. Unnecessary as it is, the victim impact statements yet again demonstrate the huge impact that your actions have had, not just in causing the death of the deceased, but on those people who wrote those statements and who are relatives of Jacqueline Camilleri and who were close to her. In particular GT, who is now aged 13 and who gave evidence, will inevitably have a very difficult life as a result of witnessing the death of his mother. The other children of the deceased, Nick Camilleri, Daniel Basavanowicz, Ashley Camilleri and Natasha Oates likewise will suffer significantly. As will Teri Sari, the sister of the deceased woman. Victor Georgiadis was himself a significant victim of your offending, which he described in the evidence that he gave during your trial.
I have taken these victim impact statements into account in determining the sentence that I should impose on you.
The nature and gravity of the offences
These crimes were committed without provocation or rational explanation. Your actions have devastated a family. Whilst it is true, as your counsel has argued, that there was no pre-meditation or planning on your part in relation to the commission of these offences, they are extremely serious. As I have earlier said, the murder of the deceased in the presence of her eleven year old son is a very serious aggravating factor in particular. I have to accept that this killing occurred because you believed, probably mistakenly, that the deceased had taken some of your cocaine. Your reaction to that belief was totally out of proportion to such a belief and ended in a terrible tragedy. The threat to kill GT was a terrible thing to do to an 11 year old child and he must have been terrified by that and all that he saw. The arson was also very serious – the damage to the premises which you had been renting was very substantial and demonstrated an indifference on your part to the consequences as opposed to your self-protection.
As was your right, you pleaded not guilty and stood your trial. You maintained that you had not caused the death of Jacqueline Camilleri or threatened to kill GT or caused the damage to the property at Ambon Street, Preston. You gave evidence to that effect. You did accept that you had stolen one vehicle and attempted to steal another. Clearly, the jury rejected your evidence. My own view is that your evidence was without credibility and that you would have been willing to say whatever was required to avoid responsibility for what you had done.
There is, therefore, no evidence of remorse and I cannot conclude that you have been willing to accept any responsibility for the actions which the jury clearly concluded you had carried out in committing these offences save for the motor vehicle offences.
Personal circumstances
You are now aged 41 years and have not been married or fathered children. Both of your parents are apparently alive, your father being 71 years of age and retired and your mother being 68 years of age. During your imprisonment at the Metropolitan Remand Centre you have maintained contact with your parents. You also have brothers, and the family history portrayed by Mr Hannebery on your behalf indicates that the family as a group was a hard working, law abiding family with the exception of yourself.
You apparently left school at the age of 16 years and worked in the family business until you were 22 years of age.
However, at the age of 17 you began the use of amphetamines, and over a five year period you developed an addiction to that drug. Attempts were made at your rehabilitation but you also developed a heroin habit or addiction which lasted for a period of some fifteen years. Mr Hannebery has told me that you stopped taking heroin in 2010, but that seemed only to result in you resuming a drug addiction with cocaine instead, and cocaine was at the centre of the circumstances giving rise to these offences.
Apparently in 1995 you almost died as a result of a heroin overdose and suffered some continuing physical symptoms including hearing loss. Two years later in 1997, you had a significant motorcycle accident and received a modest damages payout from the Transport Accident Commission. In connection with that incident or following it, you had some assistance from a Dr Wahr, who is a psychiatrist. He prescribed anti-psychotic and antidepressant medication.
In addition to this history, you have a substantial criminal history. I use the word “substantial” because it is lengthy, although I accept the submission from Mr Hannebery that the offences by and large do not represent offending at the serious end of the scale. Most of the offences have been dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court. Your offending began in 1987 when you were very young and consisted of driving offences. Five years later, you were committing drug offences and into your twenties committing offences such as theft, possession of cannabis and being unlawfully on premises. Offences in relation to the use of heroin occurred in 1996, and in 1999 you were dealt with for cultivating a narcotic plant, being cannabis. The offending continued in the Magistrates’ Court during which you breached a suspended sentence order and also breached an intervention order which Mr Hannebery informs me was obtained on behalf of the rest of your family by your father. You continued also to commit offences in relation to the driving of a motor car, leading up to offences of theft and continuing breaches of intervention orders between 2007 and 2010. It is a history that appears to reflect your difficulties with drugs but it also reflects a complete unwillingness on your part to comply with society’s rules and in particular the orders of courts. Your prior convictions whilst not involving matters of violence are not to your credit.
Submissions on sentence
Mr Hannebery submitted that in imposing sentence on you I should take into account a number of matters. He properly conceded that the offences were extremely serious and that considerations of denunciation, just punishment and general deterrence must be reflected in the sentence imposed. I agree with that submission and those factors will be prominent in deciding the sentence to be imposed on you. The community is entitled to be protected from you and individuals must also understand that conduct of this kind is repelling to the community and must be deterred.
Mr Hannebery further submitted that albeit that the matters were serious they did not represent planned or calculated conduct on your behalf. As I have already indicated, that appears to be correct. Your offending, serious as it was, appears to have been significantly spontaneous and indeed, presumably as a result of the drugs you had consumed, quite irrational.
As I have earlier indicated, I consider that the fire was started by you in an effort to conceal some aspects of what you had done. Certainly you were successful because according to the evidence of the pathologist the body of the deceased was severely damaged as a result of the fire, albeit that she had died before it started. That is also a factor to be taken into account as an aggravating factor. It is true, however, that the arson did not place any other person at risk of death or serious injury and I accept that it was not intended that it should.
The threat to GT was a particularly serious example of that offence. You were holding a knife to the throat of a child. I regard that in itself as terrible conduct. Coupled with that, he had to witness the death of his mother.
Mr Hannebery also submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation cannot be dismissed. I am frankly unable to say whether there is any significant prospect of your rehabilitation or not, but I do not propose to impose on you a sentence which forecloses that possibility.
Pursuant to s 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991 on charge 2 on this indictment, being the charge of making a threat to kill, you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender. Pursuant to s 6D of the Act, I am required to regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. I have already referred to that consideration. Also, I may, in order to achieve that purpose, impose a sentence on you longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence considered in the light of its objective circumstances. The prosecutor does not contend that I should follow that course and I have not done so.
Conclusion
I have reached the conclusion that I should impose the following sentences on you:
1.On the count of murder you will be sentenced to 23 years imprisonment.
2.On the count of making a threat to kill you will be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
3.On the count of arson you will be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
4.On the count of theft of a motor vehicle you will be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
5.On the count of attempted theft of a motor vehicle you will be sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
I order that 18 months of the sentence on count 2 and 18 months of the sentence on count 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on count 1.
I order that the sentences on counts 4 and 5 be wholly concurrent with the sentence on count 1.
The result is that a total effective sentence of 26 years imprisonment.
I order that you serve a minimum period of 20 years before being eligible to apply for release on parole.
Your pre-sentence detention is a period of 552 days and shall be reckoned as time already served. I direct that be entered in the records of the Court.
Pursuant to s 89(4)(b) of the Sentencing Act, I order that you be disqualified from obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for a period of 10 years.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that but for your pleas of guilty on counts 4 and 5, the sentence I would have imposed on you on those two counts would have been, on the count of theft of a motor vehicle 15 months’ imprisonment and on the count of attempted theft of a motor vehicle 9 months’ imprisonment.
I have already made the orders sought by the Crown and not opposed on your behalf in relation to the retention of a forensic sample pursuant to s 464ZF(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 and for payment of compensation to the owner of the motor vehicle you stole.
0
0
0