Citation: R v Vujica [2023] NSWSC 1532
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 December 2023
Judge(s): Sweeney J
Background
The offender was found guilty of murder following a judge-alone trial. On 15 January 2022, in the early hours of the morning in the outer western suburbs of Sydney, the offender encountered the deceased at a service station. A third person subsequently took $50 from the offender and rode away on a motorbike. The offender wrongly blamed the deceased for this, despite evidence suggesting the deceased had no involvement in it.
The offender followed the deceased along a public road on a pushbike, intent on recovering his $50. After the offender's friend arrived by car, the deceased approached holding a brick. The offender threw a punch at the deceased, holding in his hand a small knife attached to his keyring, and stabbed the deceased in the neck. The deceased suffered a cardiac arrest from the resulting blood loss and was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.
The offender then left the scene in his friend's car, burned the clothes he had been wearing, left his pushbike to be disposed of, and was later arrested while apparently travelling toward Queensland. He was sentenced on 6 December 2023.
Legal Issues
- How the offence should be assessed for objective seriousness relative to the midrange of murder
- Whether the offender's background, including childhood abuse and post-traumatic stress, reduced his moral culpability
- The weight to be given to remorse, cooperation in the trial process, and prospects of rehabilitation
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify reducing the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence
Decision
Sweeney J assessed the offence as just below the midrange of seriousness. Relevant factors included the absence of planning or premeditation, the use of a small knife carried habitually rather than brought for the purpose of violence, a single stab wound, and an intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill. The offender's conduct after the stabbing, including demanding his $50 while the deceased lay on the road and then fleeing the scene, reflected a significant degree of self-absorption and indifference to the deceased's welfare.
The offender's background included childhood sexual and physical abuse, and the court accepted, consistently with Bugmy v The Queen, that the effects of profound deprivation do not diminish with repeated criminal conduct. His mental health conditions, including PTSD and anxiety disorder, contributed to his state on the night. However, these circumstances did not substantially reduce his moral culpability given his capacity to exercise judgment and his awareness of what he was doing.
Her Honour found the expression of remorse fell short of a genuine acceptance of responsibility for the deceased's death. The statement that "the whole thing was not worth it, I just wanted to get on and go home, I was having my day off" was characterised by the court as demonstrating a self-centred view of the events. A small reduction was allowed for cooperation in the trial process through agreed facts, though the trial did not proceed as efficiently as those agreed facts might have suggested.
The court declined to find special circumstances justifying a departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. Given the length of the total sentence, the parole period was considered sufficient for supervised reintegration into the community without further adjustment.
Orders Made
- Total sentence of 19 years imprisonment
- Non-parole period of 14 years, commencing 15 January 2022 and expiring 14 January 2036
- Additional term (balance of sentence) of 5 years, expiring 14 January 2041
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court placed this murder just below the midrange of seriousness, applying the standard non-parole period of 20 years as a legislative guidepost while departing from it to reflect the specific circumstances, including the absence of premeditation and the use of a small, incidentally carried knife.
- Under the principle confirmed in Bugmy v The Queen, the effects of a deprived and abusive childhood on moral culpability do not diminish simply because an offender has prior criminal history; the court applied this principle to the offender's background.
- Expressions of remorse must reflect genuine acceptance of responsibility for the offending conduct. A statement expressing sorrow for the deceased's family's "loss," without acknowledging personal responsibility for causing that death, fell short of the threshold required to attract full weight as a mitigating factor.
- Cooperation in the trial process, including admissions forming part of agreed facts, can attract a sentencing discount even where the trial does not proceed with the efficiency those admissions might have suggested.
- A finding of special circumstances to reduce the statutory non-parole period ratio is not warranted where the overall length of the sentence already produces a parole period sufficient for supervised reintegration into the community.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2