R v Ali Rajab [2025] VSC 797

1. The sentence to be imposed may only be for the purposes of punishing you to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances, deterring you or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar character, establishing conditions within which your rehabilitation may be facilitated, manifesting the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which you have engaged, and protecting the community.[1] In sentencing you, I must have regard to the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment prescribed for the offence of manslaughter, current sentencing practices, the nature and gravity of the offence, your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence, the impact of the offence on the victims, your personal circumstances and the personal circumstances of the victims, your plea of guilty and the stage of the proceedings at which you indicated an intention to plead guilty, your previous character, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors concerning you or any other relevant circumstances.[2] My task is to arrive at a sentence that is just following an instinctive synthesis of all these features. The sentence imposed must be no greater than is required by these considerations.

1. A friend of Mr Severino, Mr Gerard Van Leest, was present at the rooming house that evening and witnessed you and your cousin assaulting Mr Severino. He saw you assault Mr Severino at the front of and in the house but did not see what happened in the laundry. He says, and I accept, that the assault included you punching Mr Severino on one or two occasions, but there is no evidence that the punches were of sufficient force to cause any injury and the effect of his evidence was that the punches were really an aspect of the general manhandling and intimidation of Mr Severino rather than discrete violent acts. As I said, it is accepted that you were holding the knife that caused the stab wound.
2. You are to be sentenced on the basis that the stab wound was inflicted as a result of a conscious, voluntary and deliberate act by you. Beyond that, where you got the knife from and the precise circumstances in which the stabbing occurred are not clear. There were, in a general sense, knives present at the boarding house and the Crown does not contend that the knife used was your knife or that you brought it to the house that evening. Mr Severino at the time had a 'reasonably high' level of methamphetamine in his system and your counsel has suggested that Mr Severino may have fallen or stumbled onto the knife. In the absence of any evidence that would suggest it, and in light of your plea of guilty, I am not prepared to sentence you on the basis that the stab wound was inflicted by you in some form of defensive or accidental manoeuvre. To do so would be inconsistent with your plea. You are, however, to be sentenced on the basis that:

(a) you did not attend the premises that evening with the intention of stabbing Mr Severino;

(b) you did not bring the knife with you and it is not known how you came to be in possession of it at the time of the stabbing;

(c) the precise movements of you and Mr Severino at the time of the stabbing - that is, whether he was moving or fell towards you or whether you were moving towards him - is not known;

(d) you did not intend to kill Mr Severino or to cause him really serious injury (because you have been charged with and pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder); and

(e) the stabbing occurred in a context where you and Mr Severino were engaged in an altercation, albeit that the altercation was initiated by you, and at a time when you had entered the house as a trespasser.

1. It is significant that there was only a single stab wound and the wound could be inflicted with a knife with the use of little force. This is not a case where the deceased was repeatedly stabbed.
2. As I have said, you left after the stabbing and after telling your cousin to call, and having heard your cousin place the call to, the ambulance. Not only did you leave a dying man bleeding on the floor, with your cousin to look after him, but you engaged in other conduct at that time and in the following days directed at trying to ensure that you would not be arrested or blamed for the killing. First, you demanded from Mr Van Leest where the CCTV recording device inside the house was located (there was none). I infer that this was so that you could wipe or remove any recording of the assault or of your presence at the house. Next, after you arrived home, you drove by motorcycle to a friend's house and arranged for your wife to park the Range Rover that you had earlier driven to Thomastown some distance from your house. Next, you arranged for someone to drive your wife and family from your home to a relative's home in Wollert, purchased four new pre-paid mobile phones, and met them in Wollert. Neither you nor your children returned to your home over the next few days. On 18 July 2024, your likeness was published in the media. On 19 July 2024, you turned yourself in.

1. You were born in Melbourne in 1981 and are now 44 years old. You were unhappy at school, were bullied, and you left after year nine (or thereabouts) and started work initially helping your father with his painting work, which he did part time. In your late teens you started your own painting business, which lasted until your early to mid-twenties. From your late twenties until your mid-thirties you ran another painting business that was financially successful and had a number of employees. At 22 years old, you had a child with your then wife. You separated from the mother of this child and you have had fluctuating levels of contact with this son, who is now an adult, and you now have little to do with him.
2. Although you were subject to 'harsh physical discipline at home' and 'grew up on the verge of poverty', you did not have a deprived childhood such as to reduce your moral culpability for your offending.
3. Following a period in prison in 2017 and 2018, you remarried and had two children who are now aged seven and four. Your wife continues to support you, as does the rest of your family.
4. You had problems with alcohol abuse from when you left school and then from your twenties you started to take a variety of other drugs. When you were 35, you were hospitalised for some months with meningoencephalitis and this led to the loss of your business and a depressive illness and, perhaps more significantly, to your commencing the consumption of, or significantly increasing your consumption of, methylamphetamine, to which you became addicted. Along with methylamphetamine, you abused cocaine and cannabis and Xanax (alprazolam) for many years prior to your arrest. A psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, who assessed you in November 2025, considered that at the time of the instant offending, you would have met the criteria for a diagnosis of substance use disorder but that the condition is now in remission.
5. You have a relevant criminal history albeit not one of significant direct violence like the offence for which I am sentencing you. As well as various driving offences, you received a fine in 2003 for possession of a controlled weapon, received an adjourned undertaking for an affray in 2010, a fine for dishonestly assisting in the retention of stolen goods and dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime in September 2017, a term of six months imprisonment for possession of firearms and a fine for possession of ammunition in December 2017, a fine for negligently dealing with proceeds of crime in November 2020, and then a community correction order for refusing to accompany police for a breath analysis and dangerous driving in May 2024. Your counsel submitted, and the Crown did not cavil with this description, that the affray involved a 'skirmish at a nightclub'. In light of your receiving only an adjourned undertaking for the affray in 2010, I accept that you did not commit any significant acts of violence on that occasion. Accordingly, you are sentenced on the basis that this is the first occasion you have committed a direct violent criminal act.
6. The community correction order imposed in May 2024, some 10 weeks before the stabbing, included a condition that you undergo treatment for drug abuse or dependency as directed. It is an aggravating factor that you were subject to that community correction order at the time you killed Mr Severino.[3]
7. Although you are feeling distress associated with your current predicament, you do not currently have any other mental illness.

1. As I have said, you did not have a deprived childhood in the legal sense and you were not suffering from any mental disorder or intellectual disability at the time of your offending (other than your substance abuse disorder). Accordingly, and although the difficulties you experienced growing up are relevant in a general sense, you are fully morally culpable for your actions.
2. The sentence must adequately express the Court's denunciation of your crime and deter others who might be tempted to engage in similar behaviour by imposing a significant term of imprisonment.
3. I have had regard to the victim impact statements from Mr Severino's mother Ms Angela Severino, his father Mr Antonio Severino, twin brother Mr Simon Severino, and two victim impact statements prepared by Ms Sarah Martin, his partner, one of which is provided on behalf of their child. I accept as accurate their descriptions of the impact that this crime has had on them. They are all very much affected by Mr Severino's death and will continue to be so. His mother has trouble sleeping thinking about his last moments and notes that his then three-year old daughter will now never know her father. His father has nightmares and suffers distress at having had to bury his own son. His twin brother - who was clearly very close to Mr Severino - says that Mr Severino's death sparked a decline in his mental health that resulted in depression and hospitalisation in a psychiatric ward. His partner speaks of how Mr Severino's death has left her to parent their child alone, and has affected her mental wellbeing and the 'stability' she once enjoyed. Their daughter, now five years old, is 'too young to process' what has happened to Mr Severino and has lost the opportunity to 'form a bond' with her father. The statements were powerful reminders of how causing someone's death sends waves of distress and grief through a family.
4. That said, no sentence can bring Mr Gianluca Severino back to life and the impact of your crime on Mr Severino's family members is but one of a number of factors that I have to take into account. For this and other reasons, the sentence I impose cannot be, and is not in any sense, a measure of the value of Mr Severino's life.
5. All manslaughters are serious offences, because they have resulted in the death of another person. This manslaughter took place after you forced your way into a home at night, where people are entitled to feel safe, and initiated a violent confrontation, two on one, that led to a situation where you armed yourself with, and then used, a knife to stab an unarmed man in the chest. In other ways, however, this manslaughter is less serious than some other manslaughters, in terms of your moral culpability, because it involved a spontaneous single stab wound in the course of a physical conflict where it is not clear where the knife came from. It is to be contrasted with, for example, manslaughters where there are multiple stabbings or where the violence was planned or inflicted repeatedly or over a long time period.
6. You are entitled to a utilitarian discount for your plea of guilty. You have saved the community the time and expense, and Mr Severino's family the distress, associated with a trial. I accept your counsel's submission that your decision to plead guilty should be given additional weight because, in the absence of any eyewitnesses to the incident itself, you may have had a viable defence[4] (although I do not see the case against you as being weak) and in those circumstances your plea is also indicative of some remorse and a willingness to accept responsibility for your actions and the consequences of your actions.
7. Beyond the fact of your plea, the question of remorse is not straightforward. As I have said, you left the house after the stabbing rather than staying to help, so I conclude you were not feeling significant remorse at that time. But you did encourage your cousin to call the ambulance - indeed he did so on your phone - and you only left after the ambulance had been called and in circumstances where you knew that your cousin was going to remain to do what he could to help Mr Severino. Mr Van Leest's evidence established that there was a sudden change in your tone from aggression to concern that I accept occurred immediately following the stabbing. In these circumstances, I do not consider, on balance, the fact that you left when you did to be an aggravating feature of your offending. Instead, I accept that you panicked after the stabbing - in part because it was not anything that you had thought might happen when you arrived at the house - and that this governed your actions over the following days.
8. As I have said, you turned yourself in just over a week later, but did so in circumstances where it was close to inevitable that the police would have identified and located you and so this does not necessarily indicate remorse on your part.
9. You told the psychologist Mr Newton, who assessed you for the purposes of your plea, that you knew in your 'heart' that your 'intentions were honourable' and that you had 'not been a bad man' but had 'made mistakes'. You then stated that:

So many people are suffering from this: this guy, his family, my side, my family, my children.

To see what my family is going through when I'm still here makes me think about how the [deceased man's] family is going too.

1. I accept that when you stated that your 'intentions were honourable', you were not talking of your intentions at the time of the actual stabbing, but you were instead seeking to convey that you did not go over that evening with the intention of stabbing anyone. I accept that you have insight into the wrongfulness of your conduct and the impact your crime has had on others.
2. The character references that you have provided, and I have had regard to letters of support written by your parents, wife, brother, sister, cousin and local sheikh, indicate that you have been a kind and helpful person to your family and in your community. Although I accept that you have been so, the references, to the extent that they state that you have demonstrate remorse, also express doubt that you would ever deliberately cause harm to anyone and thereby fail to come to grips with the fact that you forced your way into someone else's house, where you hoped to buy some methylamphetamine, started a fight, and then stabbed someone.
3. Although it is not said that your offending was driven by any substances you had taken at the time, I am satisfied that it was in a broader way associated with your drug addiction: but for your dependency on drugs, you would have not gone over there that night, and would not have reacted the way you did when the drugs were not immediately available (albeit that I accept that one of the reasons for which you went was because you were owed money). In this way, the extent to which you pose a risk to the community of further offending is dependent on your ability to maintain your abstinence from illicit substances. The community correction order you were given on 3 May 2024 required you to participate in drug and alcohol treatment as directed. I infer that this was because it was said to the Court, at that time, that your drug use contributed to your offending on that occasion. It is a matter of concern, in terms of your prospects of rehabilitation, that it seems that you took no steps after that time, and prior to this current offending, to address your drug addiction. As your counsel put it, you weren't terribly cooperative with the process of ridding yourself of drugs at that time.
4. You have, however, since that time been confronted with these events and their consequences. You have been abstinent from illicit substances since your arrest some 16 months ago and now, seemingly for the first time, acknowledge that you have an addiction and desire to obtain treatment for it. According to the psychologist Mr Newton, you had limited insight into your relapse potential. Since your assessment with Mr Newton, you have completed two courses directed at substance abuse while on remand, 'Alcohol and Me' and 'Ice and Me'.
5. In light of your family support, particularly of your wife and young family, and your recent appreciation that you have an addiction for which you need treatment, I consider you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that you have some remorse, and regret what has happened. But, particularly in circumstances where you were subject to a community correction order at the time of the offence, specific deterrence remains a significant sentencing consideration.
6. The grant of a parole period benefits society by allowing, if the parole board considers it appropriate at the time, for you spend a period of your sentence in the community under the supervision of a parole officer and subject to appropriate conditions, so as to reduce the risk of your reoffending when your sentence is complete. I do not consider, however, that there is anything particular about your case that warrants a greater parole period than usual.
7. I have had regard, as best one can, to comparative cases. The sentences that have been imposed for manslaughter in circumstances of a stabbing during a fight have ranged between six and nine years. That said, each case is different and these other decisions each turned on their own particular circumstances.
8. Mr Ali Rajab would you please stand.
9. For the manslaughter of Mr Gianluca Severino, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years. I will impose a non-parole period of six years. But for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
10. I declare that you have served a total of 515 days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.

[1] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1).

[2] Ibid s 5(2).

[3] See, eg, DPP v Milson [2019] VSCA 55, [66] (Priest and Weinberg JJA, McLeish JA agreeing at [76]).

[4] See, eg, DPP v Bryan [2014] VSCA 54, [28].