R v Vuocolo - [2003] VSC 472

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1481 of 2002

THE QUEEN

VITO VUOCOLO

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	8 SEPTEMBER 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 NOVEMBER 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v VUOCOLO
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 472

---

Sentence – Attempted murder of stepmother, intentionally cause serious injury to father – Protracted knife attack commencing in parents' home – Offender suffering from major depressive illness and possible effects of withdrawal from medication – No prior convictions – Genuine remorse – Excellent prospects of rehabilitation – Level of moral culpability reduced – General deterrence moderated – Sentence of 8 years for attempted murder and 5 years for intentionally causing serious injury – Total effective sentence after cumulation 10 years – Lower than normal non-parole period fixed at 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson with Mr M. Robinson	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A. Lewis	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Vito Vuocolo, you have been found guilty by a jury of the attempted murder of your stepmother Giueseppina (or Josephine) Galiano-Vuocolo, and intentionally causing serious injury to your father, Romano Vuocolo. (For convenience I will from time to time refer to them as Romano and Josephine, or as your parents). The offences occurred at their Mount Waverley home on 31 January 2002.

In sentencing you it is not only necessary to set out what occurred, but also to attempt to discover why it occurred.

On its face, the Christmas of 2001 was a happy event. A Christmas Eve celebration was held at your parents' home in Leyland Road, Mount Waverley with your family and that of your brother Aldo present. A video was made of the occasion to send to relatives in Italy. Your next contact with your parents was a telephone call to Josephine on 30 January in which you claimed to have a doctor's appointment in the Glen Waverley area the next day and asked if you could call in for a cup of coffee on the way home. You also asked her what time your father finished work on that day and you were told 4.30 p.m.

On 31 January, about that time, you arrived at the Mount Waverley premises, as did your father Romano. You greeted him with a traditional Italian two kisses and you entered the house together. Mr Vuocolo noticed that you were unshaven and you were speaking without your normal stutter. A conversation occurred at the table in the meals/family room area with you and Josephine discussing your various ailments. You requested some Sambuca with your coffee, which is an old Italian custom. Josephine suggested that it was not a good idea to take alcohol with your medication and you responded you had taken no medication that day. This accords with the evidence of your wife Soula that a dosette box containing your daily medication was…

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 Vuocolo

Details

AGLC: R v Vuocolo [2003] VSC 472
Case: [2003] VSC 472
Decision Date: 19 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vuocolo involved the defendant, who was convicted for the attempted murder of his stepmother and for intentionally causing serious injury to his father. The attack, which was protracted and involved the use of a knife, took place in the family home. The defendant was suffering from a major depressive illness at the time, which may have been exacerbated by withdrawal from medication, and he had no prior criminal convictions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes, taking into account the mitigating factors present.

The central legal issues in this case were the appropriate sentencing considerations for the defendant, given the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding them. The court had to weigh the level of moral culpability against the defendant's remorse and prospects for rehabilitation, as well as the need for general deterrence. The court also had to decide on the appropriate cumulation and non-parole periods for the sentences.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the defendant's major depressive illness and possible medication withdrawal as mitigating factors, which reduced his level of moral culpability. The court also noted the defendant's genuine remorse and excellent prospects of rehabilitation. After weighing these factors against the need for general deterrence, the court sentenced the defendant to 8 years for attempted murder and 5 years for intentionally causing serious injury, with the sentences to run concurrently. The total effective sentence was set at 10 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years, which was lower than the normal starting point due to the mitigating factors present.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was to serve a sentence of 10 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years, for the attempted murder of his stepmother and for intentionally causing serious injury to his father. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders