Schloss; In re Farfalla - [2002] VSC 385

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2000

IN THE MATTER of an Application pursuant to Sections 85A - M
of the Sentencing Act 1991:

RHONDA, MARK & JESSICA SCHLOSS	Applicants
IN RE FRANCESCO FARFALLA

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 December 2001, 18 March 2002 & 24 June 2002
DATE OF RULING:	16 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rhonda Schloss & Ors In Re Francesco Farfalla
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 385	Revision 1 Revised 5 June 2003

---

Sentencing Act 1991 S.85A-M - Compensation for victims of crime – Manslaughter – Claims by mother, father and sister of deceased – Assessment of pain and suffering.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr T Vinga/Mr M Gregurek	Garry A Nicholson
For Victoria Legal Aid	Ms Rachel Ellyard	Victoria Legal Aid
For Mrs Maria Farfalla	Mr Lavery	Patrick Cash & Associates
Francesco Farfalla was not represented

HIS HONOUR:

Applications for compensation have been made to this court under Sections 85A-M of the Sentencing Act 1991. The applicants are Rhonda, Mark and Jessica Schloss. They are respectively the mother, father and sister of Rebecca Schloss. Rebecca Schloss was killed on or about 15 October 2000. On 1 February 2001, Francesco Farfalla was found guilty of manslaughter as a consequence of having killed her.

Mark Schloss, born December 1957, and Rhonda Schloss, born December 1959, had three children, Wayne, born May 1979, Rebecca, born October 1981, and Jessica, born July 1985. In their teenage years, both Wayne and Rebecca had problems with illegal drugs. Between 1995 and 1999, Rebecca Schloss led the life of a drug addict. She declined to follow the guidelines set by her parents. She became a daily heroin user. Her parents feared for her welfare, but found they could do little beyond remaining supportive. She was sent to prison for 2 months early in 1999. That meant that she was compulsorily detoxed. It also meant that her parents were able to re-establish contact with her. Within 24 hours of her release, Rebecca Schloss had overdosed. She had to be revived by ambulance officers. After that, she was not able to remain drug free. She was agreeable to seeing more of her family during 1999. Her parents continued to act in a supportive way. They hoped that Rebecca Schloss would be able to transform her life. They believed that with maturity she could get her life back on track.

Her 18^th birthday was due on 17 October 1999. Mark Rhonda and Jessica Schloss last saw Rebecca Schloss on 15 October 1999. She was due to visit the family on 16 and 17 October. She did not arrive. The family initially feared that she had suffered an overdose. They then embarked on measures to try and find her. They learned she had made no contact with friends after 15 October. Their enquiries led to their being given information of Rebecca Schloss having been…

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 Schloss; In re Farfalla

Details

AGLC: Schloss; In re Farfalla [2002] VSC 385
Case: [2002] VSC 385
Decision Date: 16 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schloss; In re Farfalla involved a dispute regarding compensation claims for the death of a victim of manslaughter. The mother, father, and sister of the deceased sought compensation for pain and suffering under the Sentencing Act 1991. The court had to determine the appropriate compensation for each claimant based on the pain and suffering they experienced due to the victim's death. The primary legal issue was the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Act 1991 to assess the extent of pain and suffering experienced by each family member. The court needed to consider the unique relationship each claimant had with the deceased and how it affected their emotional and psychological well-being.

The court examined the nature and extent of the pain and suffering endured by each claimant. It considered the impact of the victim's death on the mother, father, and sister, including the loss of companionship, the circumstances of the death, and the ongoing emotional distress. The court also took into account the specific provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, particularly the provisions that allow for compensation to victims' families for pain and suffering. The court concluded that each family member had suffered a significant degree of pain and suffering, warranting compensation. The mother, as the primary caregiver, experienced profound emotional distress, while the father and sister also suffered from the loss of a loved one.

The court determined the appropriate compensation for each claimant based on their individual circumstances and the legal framework provided by the Sentencing Act 1991. The mother was awarded a higher compensation amount due to her close relationship with the deceased and the intensity of her grief. The father and sister also received compensation, though in lesser amounts, reflecting their respective relationships and the degree of their suffering. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the unique impact of a victim's death on each family member when assessing compensation. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of the Sentencing Act 1991 in cases involving claims for pain and suffering by victims' families.

Orders