//
[2025] NSWSC 480
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-05-16
McNaughton J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Carlino [2025] NSWSC 480
Hearing dates: 6 February 2025, 7 April 2025
Date of orders: 16 May 2025
Decision date: 16 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: McNaughton J
Decision: Mr Carlino is sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years. The Court sets a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 23 July 2022, and an additional term of 6 years commencing on 23 July 2037 and ending on 22 July 2043.
Catchwords: CRIME – Sentencing – murder – plea of guilty – domestic violence offence – where special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 5A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 44, 54A, 61
Cases Cited: Goodbun v R [2002] NSWCCA 77
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
Williams v R [2022] NSWCCA 15
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Vincent Carlino (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
V Garrity (Crown)
T Quilter (Offender)
Solicitors:
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
A EL-Darwich, Macquarie Law Group (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00216379
Publication restriction: Nil
On Wednesday 20 July 2022, sometime between 7:19pm and 9:38pm, Ms Shereen Kumar was killed by Vincent Carlino in their home in Dural. Ms Kumar and Mr Carlino had been in an “on and off” relationship for approximately 17 months, and at the time of Ms Kumar’s death they were sharing a home. Ms Kumar was 43 years old, and Mr Carlino was 37 years old.
Mr Carlino pleaded guilty to one count of murder on 23 April 2024 in the Downing Centre Local Court and was committed to this Court for sentence. He adhered to his plea on 3 May 2024.
The sentence hearing was conducted over two part-days, on 6 February 2025 and 7 April 2025. It is now my duty to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr Carlino. The devastating effect of Ms Kumar’s murder on Ms Kumar’s family including her children will be discussed later in these reasons, but now I will turn to the applicable sentencing principles, the events of 20 July 2022, the circumstances leading up to, and following, those events, and Mr Carlino’s personal circumstances.
The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A). A life sentence must be imposed if the level of culpability involved in the commission of the offence was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence (Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Act”), s 61(1)). The Crown Prosecutor did not submit that a life sentence should be imposed. I am not satisfied that a life sentence is appropriate for this offender.
A standard non‑parole period of 20 years for the offence of murder has been specified by the legislature (Sentencing Act*,* s 54A).
Both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are important statutory guideposts which need to be kept in mind when I consider all of the factors relevant to the sentencing task, assess their significance and then determine the appropriate sentence: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26]–[27]; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] (per McHugh J).
The courts have recognised that significant weight should be given to general deterrence, denunciation and community protection when sentencing an offender who takes their partner’s life, and that “[a] sentence must accord due recognition to the human dignity of the victim of domestic violence”: Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 at [54]–[55]; Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297 at [243]–[245]. Indeed, it is clear that in recent years, community concern about the number of women killed by their male domestic partners or ex-partners has only become more acute.
It is of course also necessary to ensure the offender is adequately punished and is held accountable for his actions, that he is deterred from committing similar offences and that the harm done to the victims and the community is recognised. Further, it is important, both for the offender and the community, that the sentence should promote his rehabilitation to the extent it is appropriate. As for all sentencing exercises, some of the factors pull in different directions.
The Crown tendered a bundle of material including the Notice of Committal, a signed charged certificate, signed agreed facts on sentence, Mr Carlino’s criminal and custodial history, extracts from Justice Health Records and photos taken inside the home and Mr Carlino’s van. Victim Impact Statements were also read to the Court. The first was written by Ms Kumar’s mother which was read by another family member. The second was written by her oldest child and read by him.
A bundle was tendered on behalf of Mr Carlino including a psychiatric report of Dr Andrew Ellis, dated 13 December 2024, together with a supplementary report, also dated 13 December 2024 (but in fact prepared on 6 February 2025); a letter from Mr Carlino to the Court, dated 30 January 2025, and an affidavit prepared by Mr Carlino’s solicitor, Mr EL-Darwich, sworn 3 February 2025.
Mr EL-Darwich’s affidavit annexed a range of different material as follows: a record of 228 full-day lock-in days experienced by Mr Carlino since being in custody; a Statement of Attainment in Barbering Fundamentals, dated 22 June 2023; a Certificate showing Mr Carlino’s completion of the EQUIPS Domestic and Family Violence Program, dated June 2024; a Certificate of Completion of the Dialectical Behaviour and Resilience Based Program, dated March 2024; a Certificate of Attendance at the Remand Addiction Support Program, dated April 2024; two Statements of Attainment in competencies which form part of the DLB002 Digital Literacy Advanced course, dated July and August 2024; and Certificates of Achievement showing completion of two courses through “Crossroads” called “Who are You?” and “Who is Jesus?”, dated June 2023 and March 2024.
Also annexed to that affidavit was a letter relating to Mr Carlino’s father’s ongoing treatment for Stage IV Melanoma.
Included too were a number of reference letters prepared by people Mr Carlino has known for a period of time.
Mr EL-Darwich also produced copies of Mr Carlino’s university degrees showing he completed a Bachelor of Arts in Community Development and a Bachelor of Arts (Sociology).
Following the second hearing day, a further short supplementary report from Dr Ellis, dated 8 May 2025, was provided in relation to specific questions raised by the Court, together with short further written submissions.
Ms Kumar and Mr Carlino met online on 14 February 2021, about 17 months before Ms Kumar’s death.
Ms Kumar had two children, aged 12 and 7 years old at time of the murder, who lived with Ms Kumar’s ex-husband, but spent some time with Ms Kumar.
During the time they knew each other, Ms Kumar and Mr Carlino were in an “on and off relationship”. They lived at a number of different addresses, sometimes together and sometimes apart. The relationship was tumultuous with frequent hostility and arguing between them.
In October 2021, Mr Carlino purchased the Hornsby franchise of a dog walking business, and initially the business went well.
Shortly after February 2022, Ms Kumar, together with another person, purchased the Chatswood franchise of the same dog walking business.
On 7 July 2022, Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar argued about their relationship over WhatsApp:
| Sender | Time | Content | | Mr Carlino | 11:57:46 | My feelings after the chat: | | Mr Carlino | 11:58:12 | I’m the second best man in your life | | Mr Carlino | 11:58:48 | I’m a manipulative asshole that doesn’t deserve love or cannot give love | | Mr Carlino | 12:08:34 | I feel nothing positive from your heart to me | | Mr Carlino | 12:09:05 | I’m just one step from the devil | | | | … | | Mr Carlino | 12:41:12 | One compliment? | | Mr Carlino | 12:44:12 | I’m not a man | | Mr Carlino | 12:44:17 | Not a provider | | Mr Carlino | 12:44:22 | Not a romantic | | Mr Carlino | 12:44:25 | Nothing | | Mr Carlino | 12:45:41 | Why? | | Mr Carlino | 12:45:45 | Just tell me why | | Mr Carlino | 12:45:51 | Why do you love me? | | Mr Carlino | 12:45:56 | I have no idea | | Ms Kumar | 12:47:23 | Missed voice call | | Mr Carlino | 12:47:30 | Audio file: I can’t handle it anymore! I can’t*!* I can’t get criticised anymore, I can’t handle it. | | Ms Kumar | 12:47:35 | Missed voice call |
Around June 2022, the Hornsby franchise was struggling, and by August 2022, the franchise downsized.
Also around this time, Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar once again moved in together, this time to an address in Dural (“the home”). There were three buildings on the property; Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar lived in one of two semi-detached flats.
Between around October 2021 and August 2022, Mr Carlino changed his appearance and lost weight. He also became more disorganised particularly in the few months leading up to Ms Kumar’s death, and his colleague began taking over management of the Hornsby franchise. In the days leading up to her death, Ms Kumar saw her children on 18 July 2022 and contacted her mother on 19 July 2022. As at 20 July 2022, the Chatswood franchise was growing and Ms Kumar sent details of booked dog appointments to her business partner for the next day, as usual.
| Sender | Time | Content | | Ms Kumar | 06:52:07 | Need to know if we have Sam tomorrow | | Mr Carlino | 06:53:01 | Audio file – Yeah, I’m gonna talk to her in five minutes at seven o’clock. | | Mr Carlino | 07:17:51 | Audio file – Um, Sam has confirmed for Chatswood tomorrow okay? So*,* you’ve got Sam. | | Ms Kumar | 07:19:46 | Audio file – Okay great thanks honey*.* Um, I’ll communicate with her later. Add her in a group chat and all those things*.* Um, I’m still nowhere near my pickup, running really late and it’s raining. And um I’m sitting in the van, I’m driving and I’m getting the nauseous feeling again. I just don’t feel good again, I don’t know what to do*.* I think I need to eat a lemon or something like that to get rid of um the feeling. | | Ms Kumar | 08:03:14 | Audio file: I just received another last minute booking for today. Um, this is the second booking I had to say no and it’s one of the dogs that I walk. I just don’t have the capacity, I’m going to be running around like crazy today. If I had a staff then I would say yes I’ll do more dogs in one run. Ahhh, why today*?* Why out of all the days today everyone needs to book*?* Ah, why couldn’t they do it yesterday or something like that*?* I feel so, mmm, terrible to say no cause that’s just not me. | | Mr Carlino | 08:04:05 | I know baby | | Ms Kumar | 08:08:15 | Are you ok | | Mr Carlino | 08:08:36 | Audio file: Yeah honey I’m ok. Just my Wednesday and me running around and doing shit*. So* yeah if you don’t hear from me too much, I’m not ignoring you, I’m just trying to get through the day, watch the girls, get them walked, swap around dogs, blah blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah. | | Ms Kumar | 09:19:44 | Audio file – Honey*,* did you send uh Sam to Roseville today*?* Um, what is Sam doing in the area? | | Mr Carlino | 09:31:07 | Sweetpea | | Mr Carlino | 09:31:12 | Yes | | Mr Carlino | 09:31:35 | Audio file – Yes, she came to meet you*. Uh, I put her down for Roseville and I* said “You will see this beautiful Fijian lady there with, uh four dogs, uh and go and introduce yourself”**. | | Ms Kumar | 09:34:28 | Audio file – Uh, well thank you for the compliment but honey, um I love my parks there are regular walkers because they walk the dogs around the area*.* Um, how do I say it*?* … I really don’t wanna see your staff and your dogs coming in our area. Um, the reason I love my park is because I don’t want it to get busy. I don’t want a**n episode of **indiscernible** where it’s full of people and everything. I like peace, I like to play with my dogs but not keep an eye on other dogs enter the park… I like throwing balls and all those things, I like to occupy myself and the dogs. I don’t want to keep looking on the watch, what’s happening, what’s happening, what’s happening? Not do that*.* If you want, you are more than welcome to send them to French’s Forest, St Ives, French’s Forest, St Ives… god knows where else… I come to. Especially not Roseville because you know when it rains it does get muddy and you know it’s not fair. But stick to your area honey*.* I’m just saying that in a nice way*,* please… Like you know it’s becoming a habit because you did it yesterday and you’re doing it today. It’s just not okay. Um I can’t stop you but I’m just requesting you. I wouldn’t turn up with my dogs in your area knowing that you guys are there*.* **indiscernible** covering your area*.* Okay, it’s just being considerate. | | Ms Kumar | 09:35:33 | Audio file – And if you do send someone can you just give me a heads up to expect someone*?* Um, then I will know that I will go out of my area to a different park and not be in the same park*.* With you, I’ll keep same because you walk my dogs, that becomes different. | | Mr Carlino | 09:36:35 | Got it | | Mr Carlino | 09:46:12 | I won’t annoy you anymore | | Ms Kumar | 09:50:29 | Audio file – Well it’s not about being annoying. It’s just you need to understand. You don’t understand the circumstances. You think oh I’ll just send this there. Uh, right now I’m at the Roseville Park. One side of the park I have my dogs*.* The other side of the park there is no one there*.* Thank God*. Um, if people just randomly showed* up I can’t have [name of dog] there. [Name of dog] is separately being played in the park, throwing balls, chasing ball, having a good life apart from being leashed walk, um, and this way it helps, this kind of things helps*. Because if I come to a park, and I know the dogs, the walkers the regular walkers that are here knows me and they know my dogs and I know their* dogs so I know where I am able to gambol and not gambol. That’s all. Your dogs I don’t know, it’s it’s very hard to gambol with them because I don’t know what kind of dogs they are um and you take any dogs under the sun anyway so so that’s why, hence why. And I’m sure you won’t understand it but you’re going to take it as I’m being pissed off or telling you off and all those things so that’s why it was hard for me to even say to you that um and I started like I don’t even know how to say this but like you know there’s no other way just to say like you know, yeah. I mean like they’re more than welcome to come here just let me know, heads up. Oh, uh just because I like your Roseville park I’m going to send my staff there. Just tell me*.* So in that way I’ll just end up in French’s Forest with my dogs that’s ok. Like I said, it’s a public park, I can’t stop. But where I can control the dogs I would prefer that environment. | | Mr Carlino | 10:00:28 | Audio file – Yeah, no the reason why I sent Sam is because she’s going to work with you tomorrow and you haven’t met her yet. So I just thought kill two birds with one stone and that way you can meet up with her ah and say blah blah blah blah blah this is what’s happening tomorrow and that’s it. | | Mr Carlino | 10:02:08 | With Anuja | | Ms Kumar | 10:03:10 | As my audio said, give me heads up | | Mr Carlino | 10:03:23 | I will | | Mr Carlino | 10:03:34 | I just thought I’d do it for you | | Ms Kumar | 10:03:43 | I have [name of dog] on one side having the time of his life for a change chasing balls and I’m on other | | Ms Kumar | 10:04:14 | Reply to “Just thought I’d do it for you”: Thank you so you know I prefer not having surprises | | Ms Kumar | 10:04:29 | I plan my day in advance where possible | | Ms Kumar | 10:07:51 | Don’t call me or talk to me | | Ms Kumar | 10:08:07 | You are rude and I don’t have time for rude people | | Ms Kumar | 10:08:51 | I was nice to explain and you having your own conversation | | Ms Kumar | 10:09:09 | See yourself as old man wearing skinny jeans that teenagers wear | | Mr Carlino | 10:11:35 | Ok | | Mr Carlino | 10:30:51 | Sweetheart | | Mr Carlino | 10:30:58 | I didn’t mean to be rude | | Mr Carlino | 10:31:03 | I got your point | | Mr Carlino | 10:31:06 | Seriously | | Mr Carlino | 10:31:11 | Don’t want to argue | | Mr Carlino | 10:31:13 | [Heart emoji] | | Mr Carlino | 10:33:05 | I had 8 dogs in van, our girls and Anuja | | Mr Carlino | 10:33:11 | Not the best time to listen | | Mr Carlino | 10:33:13 | Sorry | | Mr Carlino | 10:33:15 | I love you |
| Sender | Time | Content | | Ms Kumar | 11:23:28 | Screenshot of text message received by Ms Kumar from client stating “Chloe passed away”. Contact on the phone was saved as “Chloe Lab*”.* | | Mr Carlino | 11:30:41 | Sorry honey | | Mr Carlino | 11:30:45 | You ok? | | Ms Kumar | 11:32:45 | Audio file – **Crying** What do you think*?* Of course I’m not okay, I’m really not okay. She was such a good dog. | | Mr Carlino | 11:41:04 | My love | | Mr Carlino | 11:41:07 | [Blank message] | | Ms Kumar | 12:02:10 | Thanks | | Ms Kumar | 12:02:31 | 2 second call was really appreciated when I opened my heart to show and express my pain | | Mr Carlino | 12:03:50 | Video sent with the offender driving with multiple dogs in van | | Mr Carlino | 12:04:33 | Please stop | | Mr Carlino | 12:04:53 | Attacking | | Mr Carlino | 12:05:03 | I’m having a hard day | | Mr Carlino | 12:11:11 | I have a splitting migraine | | Mr Carlino | 12:11:20 | Taken 6 tablets | | Ms Kumar | 12:12:34 | You blocked this contact*.* Tap to unblock | | Ms Kumar | 12:12:43 | You blocked this contact*.* Tap to unblock |
Communications then changed to email:
| Sender | Time | Content | | Mr Carlino | 12:12:21 | [Subject] Did you just block me again?? | | Mr Carlino | 12:13:45 | [Subject] You are going completely insane | | Mr Carlino | 12:16:43 | I have done nothing wrong whatsoever. I have said nothing wrong whatsoever. Something is seriously wrong with you. | | Ms Kumar | 12:29:20 | I was upset with news and came straight to my partner expecting a quick call to calm me down and all I got was I’m busy. I was crying. You could have called me for 2 seconds. I would have done that. If I ignored you I wouldn’t hear the end of it. Well now I know with any sad news or I’m upset not to contact you. I don’t see any reason to keep you on chat if you don’t have time for me. I don’t want to know any excuses. I’m busy too. You choose to do 8 dogs and girls. Well you blocked me | | Ms Kumar | 12:29:38 | Thanks for the support partner | | Mr Carlino | 12:37:04 | Ok. Everything I say is an excuse. I couldn’t give you the valuable time – quiet time – today. That was my issue. Sorry | | Ms Kumar | 12:39:50 | When I needed consoling then I didn’t need quiet time but my partner to talk to me and I was distraught | | Ms Kumar | 12:40:59 | Anyway I bother you and you don’t need to bother about me. Thanks for the I Love you – in sadness too came in handy when I was crying and struggling alone | | Mr Carlino | 12:45:50 | Honey… please… you know I didn’t do anything bad or wrong. You are not here with me to see what I am going through today. I’m very sorry for Chloe and understand your pain. Let’s stop. Breathe. I’m not an enemy. | | Mr Carlino | 13:27:50 | [Blank message] | | Ms Kumar | 13:27:54 | You sent me 14 seconds video. You had time so you could call me that 14 seconds that would have meant a lot. Your dog didn’t die so what you know Anyway, anyone I spoke to I broke into tears and full on crying so I had people to listen and console me. | | Mr Carlino | 13:32:06 | Ok | | Mr Carlino | 13:32:32 | I give up | | Mr Carlino | 13:32:55 | I’m a complete asshole. Everybody else is better than me. No worries at all | | Mr Carlino | 13:37:04 | WHY ARE YOU WITH ME?????????????? | | Mr Carlino | 13:37:44 | YOU HATE ME | | Mr Carlino | 13:40:33 | EVERY SINGLE DAY THERE’S AN ISSUE!! |
Between 1:45pm and 2:44pm on 20 July 2022, Mr Carlino called Ms Kumar seven times and Ms Kumar called Mr Carlino twice. At 1:45pm, Mr Carlino also called Ms Kumar once via WhatsApp which went unanswered. At 3:29pm, Mr Carlino again called Ms Kumar, and the call lasted 32 minutes and 42 seconds.
At 4:00pm on 20 July 2022, Ms Kumar had a Skype session scheduled with her therapist. She joined the session a few minutes late, saying that she had just got home from work, that the day had been busy and that she was upset as one of the dogs she walked had just died.
Ms Kumar also said that her relationship with Mr Carlino was alright, that he was on his “meds” and that “its actually more me tha**t’s been irritable, short and snappy”. Ms Kumar seemed her “usual self” albeit saddened due to the death of the dog.
About 15 minutes before the session’s end, Ms Kumar’s demeanour changed; she could be seen looking to her left several times and seemed “a little bit concerned”. Ms Kumar appeared to look out the bedroom window and down at her phone numerous times, seeming distracted and concerned. The session concluded as follows:
| Speaker | Speech | | Ms Kumar | [Ms Kumar looked abruptly up and cut out to her left again just as she said]: In 5 minutes, he is going to come inside the room. I might have to cut this short today and pick it up another day is that OK | | Therapist | That’s ok, [11:11 Ms Kumar glanced down to her left at something and back at the screen] So let me just finish very quickly [Therapist continues speaking about business ideas] | | | … | | Ms Kumar | … a truck you know, whatever, so I’ll let you go. It’s OK We only were basically 15 minutes from the end, but I don’t want you to get in trouble by Vincent | | Ms Kumar | Yep [looked over to the right and reached for something] yep [glanced over to the right] | | Therapist | Ok alright | | Ms Kumar | Ok thank you and [glanced over to the right] um I’ll message Jane and get the next dates for us to continue | | Therapist | Sounds good | | Ms Kumar | Sorry [Therapist’s name], thank you |
This Skype call was the last occasion Ms Kumar was seen by anyone, other than Mr Carlino.
Between 4:02pm and 4:44pm, around the time Ms Kumar was speaking with her therapist, Mr Carlino called Ms Kumar over 76 times, almost all of which were missed calls. Between 4:02pm and 4:43pm on 20 July 2022, Mr Carlino also made 47 calls to Ms Kumar via WhatsApp, which all went unanswered. During the same period, Ms Kumar called Mr Carlino once (at 4:02pm).
At 6:57pm, Ms Kumar exchanged messages with her business partner, jokingly discussing their busy work schedule for the next day. She did not speak to Ms Kumar after that. Also, at 6:57pm, Ms Kumar messaged a WhatsApp chat, talking about her daughter. The last known communication made by Ms Kumar was an unanswered call to a client at 7:19:12pm.
During the day, Mr Carlino complained of a migraine, said he was tired and that he wanted to go home. That night, Mr Carlino sent out the daily planner around 1.75 to 2 hours later than normal, and then amended it, first at 7:08pm, and later at 11:14pm.
Between 7:19:12pm and 9:38:57pm on 20 July 2022, at their home, Mr Carlino struck Ms Kumar to the face, head and neck several times, and choked her with his hands. Ms Kumar died as a result of neck compression caused by Mr Carlino. Mr Carlino carried out that conduct with an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
Whilst still in the home, Mr Carlino wrapped Ms Kumar’s body in plastic GLAD bags, securing them with sticky tape, before putting Ms Kumar’s body into his work van and driving to various locations to dispose of it.
At about 9:25pm on 20 July 2022, Mr Carlino was seen walking his dogs towards his home where he had a short conversation with his neighbour, and then continued towards the carport. At 9:38pm, Mr Carlino drove his van out the gate from the home. At 9:40pm, Mr Carlino then travelled along Carters Road towards Galston Road, along Old Northern Road, along O’Haras Creek Road, towards a dead end and out of sight, and then back out towards Cranstons Road. At 10:10:49pm, Mr Carlino drove along Old Northern Road towards Galston Road, then along Carters Road, towards Laurie Road. At 10:26:18pm, Mr Carlino drove along Laurie Road, towards the cul-de-sac at the end of Laurie Road, passing the premises at 12 Laurie Road at about 10:26:32pm.
Upon reaching the cul-de-sac at around 10:27pm, Mr Carlino disposed of Ms Kumar’s body in a clearing about 10 metres into the bush. Mr Carlino covered Ms Kumar’s body with vegetation and branches from a nearby pile in an attempt to hide the body. Mr Carlino left the cul-de-sac and after just under 21 minutes, at 10:47:24pm, Mr Carlino drove back past 12 Laurie Road again in the opposite direction, back towards Carters Road. He then returned home at around 10:56pm.
Mr Carlino falsely reported to various people that Ms Kumar was missing, having gone for a walk the previous night, and not returned. For example, between 5:30am and 9:30am on 21 July 2022, he made such false reports to the police, one of his employees, Ms Kumar’s mother, an employee of the Hornsby franchise, Ms Kumar’s business partner, and a neighbour. He made a similar false report in the afternoon to another neighbour. Over the following days, Mr Carlino continued to make a number of false statements to witnesses and police in respect of the disappearance of Ms Kumar, his involvement in her murder, and his movements over that period.
At around 8:00am, Mr Carlino was seen walking along Mitchell Road from the direction of Laurie Road. About 5 minutes later, he was seen walking back towards Laurie Road, before again turning around and walking back.
At 5:55pm, Mr Carlino searched “O.J. Simpson” on Wikipedia. At around 8:40pm, he viewed an article on the website “dailymail.uk” about Ms Kumar being missing, a number of times.
At 8:30am on 21 July 2022, police attended the home in response to a CAD job broadcast at 5:58am, “INF CALLED ADVISING 43 PARTNER SHEREEN KUMAR (DOB [redacted]). HAS BEEN MISSING SINCE 9PM LAST NIGHT*.* HAS HISTORY OF SELF HARM*.* INF WOULD LIKE TO SEE POLICE”, and met with Mr Carlino. Mr Carlino’s work van, a Renault Kangoo with a logo of the franchise, was parked in the driveway. Ms Kumar’s work van, a white Citroen van with the same logo, was parked in a carport. Mr Carlino was quiet and did not seem too bothered by the situation; he did not appear worried, seemed quite reserved and was not too forthcoming with information.
Mr Carlino told police that at about 5:00pm on 20 July 2022, he had returned home from work and Ms Kumar told him that she had just got off a call with a therapist. He and Ms Kumar had a conversation about the call, and “everything went back to normal” that night.
Mr Carlino told police that he last saw Ms Kumar at about 9:00pm on Wednesday, 20 July 2022. He said Ms Kumar had called a therapist “due to her going to stages of darkness” and that “[s]ince May she has been going downhill”. Mr Carlino said Ms Kumar refused to take medication, and that the therapist told Ms Kumar, “You’re cursed, your mother-in-law wants you dead and out of Vincent’s life”. Mr Carlino told police Ms Kumar got up and said, “I can’t settle, I’m restless, I need to leave to get fresh air”, and he said he would “call the cop**s”, to which she replied, “if you call the cops, I’ll kill myself”.
Mr Carlino said that he let her go and waited for about half an hour before he went out for a drive to look for her, but could not find her and returned home, and that he had not seen her since. Police entered the home with Mr Carlino and noticed it was untidy. He told them that he could not find Ms Kumar’s wallet and did not know whether she had taken any bank cards.
Police asked to see Ms Kumar’s phone, and Mr Carlino showed them to their bedroom. Police observed that the bed was not made and was messy. Mr Carlino accessed the joint internet banking account he shared with Ms Kumar, upon police request, and appeared confused by a transaction that morning (which ultimately was a transaction made on 19 July 2022 but processed on 21 July 2022). Police seized Ms Kumar’s two phones from the right bedside table in the bedroom.
Mr Carlino told police that after leaving the house, he saw Ms Kumar turn right towards Carters Road, and he went out in a car looking for her for about one and a half hours. He said that when Ms Kumar left the house, she was wearing white pyjamas and a purple night gown, but that he was unsure whether she was wearing shoes, saying “I’d imagine she would otherwise her feet would get cold.” Police left and spoke to nearby residents, none of whom reported having seen or heard anything the night before.
At about 11:20am that day (21 July 2022), police attended the home again as Mr Carlino was returning in his van. Mr Carlino asked the police “Have you found her yet*?*” Police indicated that they had not.
Police then commenced a search for Ms Kumar, canvassing neighbouring properties. At this stage, the police investigation was one of a missing person. Mr Carlino provided the keys to Ms Kumar’s van in which a journal was located.
At around 1:20pm, a cleaner arrived to clean the home, having been arranged some time prior. Police sent the cleaner away from the home. The same day, police attended the home and woke Mr Carlino who was asleep on a couch with his dogs. Mr Carlino said that he was tired as he had been up all night looking for Ms Kumar.
At 12:24pm, a Geo Text (a text message sent out by the NSW Police Force to people within the area of a high-risk missing person’s last known location) was disseminated relating to the search for Ms Kumar, last seen wearing white pyjamas and a purple dressing gown. At about 3:00pm, investigating police became aware of a crime stoppers report that Ms Kumar was in fear of Mr Carlino.
At about 5:20pm, police again attended the home and spoke with Mr Carlino about providing a statement. When asked whether “this sort of thing [has] happened before,” Mr Carlino responded “Um, to this extent, no*.* … but for her running away, yes,” and told them Ms Kumar would be away for about two to three hours before returning. Police conveyed Mr Carlino to Hornsby Police Station.
At about 6:20pm on 21 July 2022, at Hornsby Police Station, Mr Carlino provided a recorded statement regarding Ms Kumar’s disappearance. He provided the following details:
(a) He and Ms Kumar started chatting via Facebook on Valentine’s Day 2021 and met for their first date on 6 March 2021. Everything went well and they continued dating. Around May 2021, he moved in with Ms Kumar at an address in The Ponds. (b) In around April, Ms Kumar “started with her suicidal attempts” and she took around 12 to 14 tablets at once. The “same thing” happened at The Ponds about a month later. (c) In December 2021, he and Ms Kumar tried to make amends but “called it quits”. Just before the new year, they started dating again. He tried to “break it off” multiple times between January and May 2022, but every time Ms Kumar drank and took tablets, and he would “give in”. He said it was their “patter[n]..” (d) They moved to Dural in June 2022 and the relationship was good but “anything would set [Ms Kumar] off”, particularly in the last two months. Ms Kumar called Mr Carlino names and threatened suicide. Mr Carlino had to shake her up a few times and say, “Stop, stop, stop, stop, you’re going overboard, stop.” (e) Mr Carlino suffered from anxiety and depression for “20 plus years” and was medicated. (f) The relationship between Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar was good most of the time, but they argued over “silly issue[s]” that would “blow into a mountain.” In the lead up to 20 July 2022, they had “silly fights”, and Ms Kumar was “dramatic” and “unreasonable”. (g) Mr Carlino stopped contacting his parents in May due to issues with Ms Kumar and his mother. Ms Kumar had sent a “nasty letter” to Mr Carlino’s mother asking for money he had borrowed, and she was never forgiven by his mother. (h) Around once a month, Ms Kumar went for a walk when she could not settle, either taking her car or sometimes going on foot. (i) Mr Carlino denied interest in one another’s franchises, stating that his franchise was going well, with the past months’ sales being $35,500 and Ms Kumar’s monthly sales were about $15,000. (j) On 20 July 2022, Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar argued over the phone at around lunchtime about Mr Carlino’s response to Ms Kumar being upset over a client’s dog dying. The argument continued until around 4:15pm when Ms Kumar had her session with the therapist, and with the last comment from Ms Kumar being, “After my session I’m g**unna decide whether I want to stay in this life or not.” (k) Mr Carlino called her repeatedly with no answer. He returned home at about 5:00pm and Ms Kumar said she had just finished her session with the therapist who had told her that she had a “black curse”, and people around her wanted her dead, especially his mother. They talked about this until around 6:00pm. Ms Kumar said that it was impacting her moods, making her feel “dark” and that she believed it was Mr Carlino’s mother who put a “black curse” on her because she did not want her in Mr Carlino’s life. (l) They had dinner and both did some work admin. Around 9:00pm, Ms Kumar said, “I can’t settle, um, my mind’s racing. I need to get out, I need to get some fresh air.” Mr Carlino asked where she was going, and she said, “None of your business.” Mr Carlino asked whether she was going to take her phone, and she said, “No because I don’t want you to pester me when I want my time.” He said “OK bye”. Ms Kumar walked towards Carters Road, and turned right onto Carters Road, and that was the last time he saw her. She did not take her car. (m) Ms Kumar left wearing white pyjamas with a multi-coloured pattern, socks, Ugg boots and a purple nightgown. She did not take her phone. (n) Mr Carlino waited 30 to 40 minutes before going to look for her in his van. He searched for close to 2 hours and returned home at around 11:45pm. He then watched TV in bed and dozed. (o) He denied any “dramas” between them after cooking dinner and said it was all fine. (p) Mr Carlino “… saw that look in her eyes yesterday … the, like I’ve made up my mind type of thing” and could not get “that look” out of his head. (q) He denied knowledge of what happened to Ms Kumar, adding, “I had my thoughts, yep*.* … That she’s done something to herself*.* … Mmm*, I don’t know, jump somewhere. Taking a dog leash so strangled herself**.* I don’t know. I don’t know. There’s always thoughts go through my head*.”* (r) Mr Carlino provided a route taken when he went out looking for Ms Kumar (which was ultimately inconsistent with the location data on his phones). He did not find Ms Kumar. He stopped a few times to get out and search at quieter parts or lookouts and surrounding bushland, places he thought Ms Kumar would go to “seek solitude”.
At about 9:15pm on 21 July 2022, police again attended the home and conducted a search through the home with Mr Carlino. Police also searched his work van; the interior was untidy but nothing of interest was located. In Ms Kumar’s work van, police located a phone case with personal identification and bank cards belonging to Ms Kumar as well as a notebook.
At about 1:30pm on 22 July 2022, police again attended the home and seized Ms Kumar’s rose gold Apple iWatch from the bedside table. Whilst speaking with Mr Carlino, police asked him how he felt and he said “… I’m not here*.* … I’m not present”. Mr Carlino also indicated that his sleep was not as bad the previous night, and that “It was better than the night before…**. I think it was with, did the statement and everything, I think I felt like, I was doing my bit”.
Police took Mr Carlino to Hornsby Police Station, and during the trip, while Body Worn Video was activated, Mr Carlino again provided a route he took when looking for Ms Kumar. This was ultimately inconsistent with the location data on his phones, and indicated he returned home at around 10:00 or 11:00pm. He also explained to police that he was not close with his family, and they stopped talking around Mother’s Day because his mother did not really like Ms Kumar, nor did she approve of their relationship.
At around 2:11pm on 22 July 2022, police and Mr Carlino arrived at Hornsby Police Station. Mr Carlino provided the passcode to his phones which police then began downloading. He provided a further electronically recorded statement regarding his search route using maps. During this interview, Mr Carlino again provided an account of the route that he took (which was inconsistent with the location data later reviewed from his two phones). He also made the following comments:
(a) He admitted he stopped at a cul-de-sac dead end, but indicated it was along Middle Dural Road. He stopped there with his dogs for around 10 to 15 minutes and had a look around with the dogs. (b) When he came back, he went all the way down Carters Road at “11ish”. He said he was out for just under 2 hours and made about 5 or 6 stops of approximately 15 minutes. Mr Carlino did not think he ever went through the bush. (c) He denied Ms Kumar would ever go on walks for joy, exercise or peace of mind; she only went for walks when she was angry, “pissed off” and wanted time out. Ms Kumar had walked off before, normally for 90 minutes to 2 hours. When asked how long it was on 20 July 2022 before he became concerned, he indicated “about 40 minutes”. Police asked why that was if she usually returned, and he explained, “Because, I guess I know her now. Um, mm, I could tell when she’s just pissed off, pissed off, and pissed off, erratic. And Wednesday night, she was erratic. She was like, yeah. […] And she just wasn’t reasoning. Like, she wouldn’t calm down, and so I don’t know what she would do. Yeah.” When asked whether Ms Kumar said anything before leaving, Mr Carlino said, “Like*,* ‘I need time for myself, I need my time, time to breathe, I’m not settling’. Um, and then she said, ‘Don’t follow me, don’t … me*.*’ Yep.”
Around 8:00am on 23 July 2022, police again attended the home. Mr Carlino was carrying bags towards a pile of garbage bags and boxes at the end of his driveway. He stopped and said, “I’m just catching up on putting some rubbish out, I haven’t had a chance the last couple of days. It’s not what it looks like”.
At about 10:00am on 23 July 2022, an employee of the Hornsby franchise attended the home. She noticed the house was spotless and Mr Carlino had taken the garbage bags out. Mr Carlino told her, “I think I need to get a lawyer, just to be safe” and that he wanted to sell the business, hoping to receive $100,000 to “last me a few months to get away” before quickly correcting himself “not get away, just stay here".
At about 3:20pm on Saturday, 23 July 2022, Mr Carlino was seen walking his two dogs along Laurie Road.
At about 5:00pm that day, police reviewed the location data from Mr Carlino’s phones which did not match the version he had provided in his interview on 22 July 2022. The data showed he had been at the end of Laurie Road between 10:33pm and 10:40pm on Wednesday, 20 July 2022.
At about 5:40pm, police located Ms Kumar’s body in a bushland clearing at the large cul-de-sac at the end of Laurie Road, Dural. To the left of the road was bushland, and to the right was a residential property.
Ms Kumar’s body was wrapped in black plastic GLAD bags, secured with clear sticky tape, and partially covered by a number of tree branches that appeared to be from a nearby stack of cut branches. Light purple fabric protruded from a small opening in one of the bags. The location was declared a crime scene and Ms Kumar’s body was conveyed to the Forensic Medicine and Coroners Court Complex at Lidcombe.
At about 11:33pm, police attended the home and placed Mr Carlino under arrest for the murder of Ms Kumar.
Around 3:00am on 24 July 2022, Mr Carlino was interviewed for about 10 minutes. He told the police he did not have anything further to tell police about the previous versions he had given, and did not have anything he wanted to tell police about the investigation into his involvement in Ms Kumar’s murder or about the location of a body believed to be that of Ms Kumar.
Mr Carlino consented to a self-administered buccal swab and non-intimate photographs. Mr Carlino had scratches or scabbing to both wrists, a scratch or scabbing below his left index finger knuckle, 3 or 4 foreign bodies in his right palm, a scratch to the middle of his upper back, scratches or scabbing to his right calf and a scratch above his right elbow.
(a) 4 pillowcases from the bed in the main bedroom; (b) 2 rolls of clear packing tape from the TV unit in the living room and the floor of bedroom 1; (c) white sheets with marks or dirt from the washing machine in the laundry; (d) 1 pair of muddy brown boots from the patio; (e) 1 black head lamp from the patio; and (f) 1 pair of black jeans, with dirt on them, from the laundry bag in the ensuite.
On 27 July 2022, police conducted a further search at the home, during which a stained pillow missing a pillow protector was located on the floor to the right side of the bed in the main bedroom at the top of a pile of four pillows. Another identical pillow was also located, with the same type and brand of pillow protector as that found on Ms Kumar’s body.
Shoe prints were also located around the right side of the home, to the right side of a neighbour’s front door, and black GLAD plastic bags consistent with the bags in which Ms Kumar’s body was wrapped were located in the kitchen.
Mr Carlino’s fingerprints matched fingerprints taken from the black plastic GLAD bags and the sticky tape used to wrap Ms Kumar’s body.
Several post-mortem exhibits were analysed, and the following was relevantly found. Blood was detected on a swab of Ms Kumar’s right ring fingernail clipping and a mixed DNA profile was located (Mr Carlino could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture); Mr Carlino’s blood was located on swabs of the left and right sides of her face; Mr Carlino’s DNA was located on a swab of Ms Kumar’s left palm; a mixed DNA profile was located on trace DNA tapelifts from both ends of side B of the pillow protector located on the stomach of Ms Kumar (Mr Carlino was unable to be excluded as a contributor to the mixture); a mixed DNA profile was located on a swatch from a blood stain on side B of the pillow protector (Ms Kumar could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture).
The following represents a summary of this portion of the agreed facts.
The expert examiner recorded the cause of death as neck compression. He opined that the severe nature of the injuries involving various parts of the anterior neck structures, such as fractures to the thyroid and cricoid cartilages and hyoid bone, with associated haemorrhages indicated repetitive application of a relatively large force to this area of the body. He observed widespread blunt force injuries involving the anterior neck structures. Further observations included the following:
There were multiple blunt injuries over the anterior neck and right side of the face as well as multiple recent fractures of several laryngeal structures and injuries to the anterior neck. There were also blunt injuries to both temporal regions of Ms Kumar’s head. There were also injuries to the jaw. Further, numerous superficial blunt injuries were present, including both eyelids swollen; and, on the right side of the face, bruising over the upper part of the right ear, abrasions over the right eyebrow and right eyelid and next to the right eye, and an abrasion to the right of the nose, as well as other abrasions and haemorrhaging.
A white USB charging cable was located loosely present around the neck. No damage was noted to the cable.
Located over the abdomen of Ms Kumar was a standard size, off-white, soft (padded) pillow protector. The pillow protector was consistent with the missing item from the main bedroom.
No defensive injuries were identified.
“Father: But was it, was it with a knife or just the hands?
Mr Carlino: The hands.
Father: Ahh the hands
Mr Carlino: Yeah
Father: Ah okay okay, I was thinking that she got you with something
Mr Carlino: Not with, not with a knife but only with hands
Father: I was thinking that she hit you with her hands
Mr Carlino: Yeah
Father: And you defended yourself with your hands too?
Mr Carlino: Yeah, that’s it
Father: Ahhh, if you left her on the ground and called us, the police…
Mr Carlino: I know
Father: You lost it, you lost it there, when you took…
Mr Carlino: I know
Father: … when you took her hit you lost because you defended yourself. You should have called us straight away, even called the police and things would be different, see?
Mr Carlino: Yeah, I know
Father: [In the background] Ask did he choke her; did you choke her?
Mr Carlino: Hmm?
Father: Ask him, did he choke her?
Mother: If he, if he choked her?
Father: (inaudible)
Mother: You like affogato? (laughs)
Mr Carlino: Yeah, I like affogato
Mother: Yeah, yeah
Father: He choked her? Yeah?
Mother: Yeah, I don’t know. How many times did you hit her?
Mr Carlino: Zero
Mother: Huh?
Mr Carlino: Zero
Mother: Zero? How many times did you hit her? Zero
Mr Carlino: Yeah zero
Mother: And how did she die then, you choked her?
Mr Carlino: You said, affogato. That’s…
Mother: Ah, okay, alright. So, she wasn’t black and blue like they said on that thing. That you stomped on her, you stomped on her.
Mr Carlino: What?
Mother: That you hit her many times?
Mr Carlino: What?
Mother: Didn’t you hit her many times? So, you just choked her?
Father: (inaudible)
Mr Carlino: Yeah
Mother: Yeah, because in the paper it said that she was black, black, that she was full of bruises.
Mr Carlino: Yeah, she was black. But that was..
Mother: She was black
Mr Carlino: That was before she died.
Mother: Yeah, she was black before she died?
Mr Carlino: Yeah
Mother: But you only choked her?
Mr Carlino: Yeah”
The profound seriousness of the unlawful taking of another’s life is well recognised. It is exemplified by the statutory guideposts of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and the standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment. It is also well recognised that murder is a crime which can be committed within a wide range of circumstances with differing gravity.
Mr Carlino is to be sentenced on the basis that he intended to do at least grievous bodily harm, rather than having an intention to kill. However, in the circumstances of this case, this makes very little difference to the objective gravity of the offending. Mr Carlino engaged in inherently dangerous conduct by applying significant pressure to the anterior neck of Ms Kumar, ultimately resulting in her asphyxiation. This was an attack on a woman in her own home where she was entitled to feel safe and secure (Sentencing Act, s 21A(2)(eb)), by a partner who at that time not only did not care for her, nor keep her safe, but violently attacked her, causing her death.
The injuries suffered by Ms Kumar were indicative of repetitive application of a relatively large force. I accept that her facial injuries were caused by Mr Carlino striking her to the head and neck several times prior to choking her with his hands.
“Although it will generally be the case that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is less culpable to a greater or lesser degree than an intention to kill, this is not always the case”: R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252 at [16]. As indicated, in my view this case is an instance of where the general proposition does not apply. In all of the circumstances of this case, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm rather than an intention to kill makes very little difference to the objective criminality of this offending.
It can also be observed that Mr Carlino took considerable steps to cover up his crime, including making false claims to police and others over the three days following the murder. He endeavoured to make Ms Kumar’s death look like a disappearance. He erroneously tried to blame what he claimed was Ms Kumar’s mental health, indicating she was so erratic and overly emotional that she had simply left home on a walk, and claimed that her therapist had told her that she had a “black curse”, people around her wanted her dead, especially his mother. He allowed her family, friends, police and emergency services to believe that she had gone missing and to search for her.
Mr Carlino also made significant preparations to attempt to dispose of Ms Kumar’s body without detection by wrapping her body in plastic bags in the home, before placing her body in his work van and driving around assessing various locations where he could best secrete her remains in an effort to cover up his crime. He eventually left her body in a clearing in bushland at the end of a remote cul-de-sac and covered her body with nearby vegetation in a further attempt at concealment.
It is clear that Mr Carlino and Ms Kumar had been in a volatile domestic relationship over a seventeen month period. As noted, on the afternoon of the murder, while Ms Kumar was having a Skype session with her therapist, Mr Carlino attempted to call her over 76 times and made 47 calls using WhatsApp over a period of about 45 minutes. I accept too that earlier messages between the couple indicated that their relationship was quite troubled and their poor communication and personal vulnerabilities meant that issues could escalate from minor to extreme within a very short period of time. I also accept that it was apparent that Mr Carlino felt insecure in the relationship and did not deal maturely with criticism. There were also issues over their competing dog walking franchises. The facts indicate that in the lead up to the murder Mr Carlino’s franchise was not doing well and he had become increasingly disorganised at work.
I accept that there was a lack of planning of the murder (Sentencing Act, s 21A(3)(b)) and that there was no weapon involved. I acknowledge that ordinary household items as well as Mr Carlino’s own work van were used to remove and hide the body. I also note his fingerprints were found on items used to cover the body, and that no location had been chosen to dispose of the body before death. I further acknowledge that Mr Carlino left an electronic trail of his movements after the offence which contradicted his false account. I accept the offending was unsophisticated.
The attempt to cover up the crime was deceptive, but I also accept that the deception was not planned and revealed a lack of sophistication. However, in the circumstances of this case, the lack of planning is of little ultimate mitigatory effect. As has been observed, this factor is typical of many domestic violence offences which are *not “*premeditated”. I also observe that planned domestic murders are generally assessed as particularly grave (for example, Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77) and this matter does not fall into that category.
In determining the objective seriousness of the offence, the assessment must be undertaken “without reference to matters personal to a particular offender or class of offenders,” rather “[i]t is to be determined wholly by reference to the nature of the offending” (Muldrock at [27]). In all of the circumstances, I consider the objective seriousness of the offending as within the mid-range of objective seriousness.
The following information, which I accept (except for one contested aspect dealt with further below), comes from Dr Ellis’ reports and is supported in some respects by letters provided to the Court from family members and friends, as well as Justice Health and other custodial records.
Mr Carlino came from an intact family from an Italian background. He has two younger brothers and his parents are together. His father was sometimes violent towards himself and his mother. Mr Carlino was sexually abused by a male babysitter at 5 years old and by a senior Catholic server at 11 years old. After this latter abuse, Mr Carlino ceased being an altar boy.
Mr Carlino completed schooling and had always worked. There were no discipline problems at school, and he was an average student. He had worked in grocery store management and during COVID managed a cleaning business that was no longer viable. I also note from one of the references provided that from 2008 to 2010 he worked in a funeral business. His most recent business was the dog walking franchise.
He had been married previously and had no children.
In relation to his dog walking business, he said that he felt under financial pressure as the business was struggling, and that he felt significantly depressed, and had been to see his general practitioner.
Mr Carlino told Dr Ellis that he was taking the antidepressant sertraline (200 mg daily) prescribed by his general practitioner. He was seeking a referral to a psychiatrist, but this did not eventuate. He said he increased his antidepressant medication himself, albeit he did discuss this with his general practitioner.
He also stated that he was taking analgesic medications off prescription which he said included oxycodone, codeine, ibuprofen and paracetamol.
Mr Carlino reported experiencing depression since 2002, characterised by low moods where he feels dark and sad. He has suicidal ideas which take the form of images of hanging himself and a lack of motivation.
Since being in custody, he has seen a psychiatrist and has been prescribed the antidepressant duloxetine (60 mg daily). He has one charge for fighting whilst in custody in July 2023. He told Dr Ellis he was currently coping with his depressed mood. He had a passive wish to die most days, but no active thoughts to harm or kill himself.
He has flashbacks in dreams of past abuse.
He also told Dr Ellis he was always anxious, also starting in about 2002, alongside feeling depressed. He said that memories of being abused and domestic violence in his family of origin are associated with this anxiety. He stated he often worried about his finances excessively.
He also reported two suicide attempts to Dr Ellis. He attempted to hang himself from a wardrobe in April 2022 whilst Ms Kumar was present, and she untied him. In July 2022, he attempted to hang himself from a tree and again Ms Kumar was able to get him down.
He also said he was frequently using “opioid medications” at the time. He said he was using these to help him sleep and deal with stressful thoughts. He said he did not talk to the doctor about this use.
He told Dr Ellis he began smoking cannabis in 2016, smoking one or two joints every week until he was arrested. He also stated he began to use “opioid analgesics” on a daily basis in 2021. He stated he would be tolerant to the effects, requiring more pills, and would experience withdrawals where he would shake and feel nauseous if he could not obtain the tablets.
Mr Carlino also reported a “history of depression and autism in his brother, a history of depression and [sic] paternal uncles, a history of bipolar disorder and [sic] his paternal aunt and a history of depression and anxiety in both sets of grandparents.”
As to the period of the offence, Mr Carlino said that he was increasingly confused, not eating well, losing weight and not sleeping well. I make the observation at this point that the agreed facts also reflect this account as was noted above at [25].
Mr Carlino stated that the relationship with his partner was under significant tension, and he felt she was consistently critical of him and had emotional outbursts of her own that he found difficult to cope with.
Mr Carlino told Dr Ellis that on the day of the murder he had been taking opioid medication as well as his antidepressant. Dr Ellis’ report records:
“He felt significantly frustrated. He was frustrated and irritated by the telephone and text message interactions he had with his partner on the day. He said that when they were both home in the evening that he was significantly annoyed at her and should have just walked away from the house. He reports that he entered the bedroom at one point and his partner was arguing with him, began to hit him and that he hit her back and strangled her. He said that he was not planning to do this but felt significantly irritated, angry and confused at the time.
He said that when he realised that she was dead he was horrified. He did not know what to do. He was worried about what would happen if he was found out, and came up with a quick plan. He describes removing the body and generally being confused about what to do, so decided to lie about what had happened.
He says that in retrospect he should have walked away rather than confront his partner at the time. He said that he should have been taking better care of his health and mental health, not using opioid medications. He said that no one deserves to die and he is very sorry for what occurred. He was prepared to take whatever punishment, and engage in any form of rehabilitation.”
Dr Ellis opined in his first report that Mr Carlino would meet the criteria for an opioid use disorder. He stated that Mr Carlino has used opioid painkillers despite negative effects for his mental health, relationships, and work performance. He described typical tolerance to and withdrawal from the substances.
The Crown contested this aspect of Dr Ellis’ report. I will return to this aspect below.
As to the long-term history of depressed and anxious mood, Dr Ellis also opined that the most appropriate diagnosis was a major depressive disorder with anxious features, currently in partial remission whilst under treatment with antidepressant medication. Dr Ellis stated:
“The use of opioid medication concurrently with antidepressants would reduce their effectiveness and opioid medications tend to have a[n] overall depressant effect when used habitually which could contribute to the worsening of a depressive episode.
[…] His use of opioid medication at the time likely rendered his antidepressant medication ineffective. The very high dose of antidepressant medication he was taking could potentially have contributed to some level of agitation. This opioid use and effectively untreated depression likely led to him being more irritable and impulsive in decision-making. […] He may have underlying personality vulnerabilities that also increase irritability and impulsivity when confronted with interpersonal disputes. These would be exacerbated by a depressed mood state and intermittent intoxication and withdrawal from opioid medications. The combination of these issues likely rendered him more impulsive and prone to negative emotions at the time. The depressed mood state likely rented [sic] him less concerned with long-term consequences of actions as he was in a suicidal frame of mind. […]
His deception after the homicide could be consistent with an ongoing indecisiveness and confusion that can accompany depressive mood states, alongside an awareness of guilt.”
Dr Ellis was of the view that Mr Carlino’s insight into his propensity for violence is “emerging” and his understanding of his need for treatment and management are “presently good”.
Dr Ellis then opined as to Mr Carlino’s risk of reoffending and assessed that in the absence of any treatment or supervision, Mr Carlino would fall into a group of persons with a low risk of general violent offending but of concern if he were to re-enter a relationship. With professional supports and supervision, this would likely be further reduced. Dr Ellis recommended him continuing psychiatric care and having ongoing monitoring of medication used to treat depression. He should also undertake substance use counselling alongside treatment for depression.
Dr Ellis’ supplementary report was prepared after he was provided with additional documents – being Mr Carlino’s Justice Health records, police custodial records and photographs of medications located during searches by the police. Having examined this new material, Dr Ellis noted that Mr Carlino did not report use of opioids on reception to custody and was not assessed as being intoxicated or withdrawing on reception to custody. When he saw a psychiatrist on 5 May 2023, his substance use was recorded as “unknown”, and one week later he denied any substance use to that psychiatrist. Dr Ellis also noted that the crime scene photographs of medication do not include any opioid medications. Dr Ellis stated:
“This draws into some question the history given at my review of use of non-prescribed opioids from 2021. There is only his account that this use occurred, and impacted on his mental state.”
Having noted that, Dr Ellis nevertheless stated that other aspects of his account such as history of treatment for depression are corroborated by medical notes. He also opined that some persons may not report use of “drugs” in custody as they do not consider prescription medication abuse a “drug”.
Dr Ellis stated that if Mr Carlino’s history of using opioid medication is false then he would not qualify for an opioid use disorder. Further, this may also indicate greater immature personality function, deflecting responsibility for actions at the material time to the effect of opioid use.
Dr Ellis concluded by opining that if it were assumed that Mr Carlino was experiencing a major depressive disorder but not using opioid painkillers, his conclusion previously expressed would be changed in that none of the impulsivity and emotional instability at the time would have been attributable to opioid use. Those qualities would then be attributed to depression and personality factors.
In Dr Ellis’ further supplementary report of 8 May 2025, Dr Ellis addressed the issue of whether, if Mr Carlino was using non-opioid medication (possibly to excess), such use would have any effect on the efficacy of the antidepressant medication he reported he was taking. Dr Ellis opined that it is “possible” that the use of ibuprofen could “attenuate the effectiveness” of the antidepressant medication Mr Carlino was taking (noting it has been observed in laboratory and observational studies), but use in overdose had not been studied (to his knowledge). Dr Ellis also stated that non-opioid analgesics are unlikely to impact on mental state either by themselves or in combination with the antidepressant medication Mr Carlino was taking. I will return to this issue below.
I accept that Mr Carlino has no record of previous convictions (Sentencing Act, s 21A(3)(e)). The only matter on his record is a 2019 matter of common assault for which he received a conditional release order, without conviction, for 12 months. That matter also involved a female victim of a domestic violence offence. Given the circumstances of the current offence, the lack of previous convictions has very limited mitigatory effect on sentence. I also accept that Mr Carlino has previously been a person of good character (Sentencing Act, s 21A(3)(f)). His previous good character has also been attested to by a number of friends and family members. Again, this has only a limited mitigatory effect on sentence, especially given his previous charge of assault which dispels the notion that this current offence involving violence is an uncharacteristic aberration. I do acknowledge, however, that the extreme level of violence in this offence is uncharacteristic.
His lack of previous convictions, and strong support from members of his family and immediate community are, however, also relevant to his prospects of rehabilitation, to which I will turn further below.
I now turn to the question of whether Mr Carlino’s depressive disorder contributed to the offence in a material way such that his moral culpability should be reduced, and also whether Mr Carlino’s background of trauma reduces his moral blameworthiness.
As noted above, the Crown contested the veracity of Mr Carlino’s opioid addiction, noting that it was purely self-reported and not supported by any other evidence. The Crown submitted that the self-reported history of an addiction to opioid drugs, made only to Dr Ellis, and in contrast to all other available evidence, was such that the Court could not be satisfied of such an addiction on the balance of probabilities. If not so satisfied, the Court could not be satisfied of any reduction in moral culpability on the basis of opioid drugs reducing the effectiveness of Mr Carlino’s anti-depressants because what remains is a depressive disorder for which he was receiving medical treatment in the community. The Crown’s ultimate contention was that any reduction in moral culpability only on the basis of a depressive illness would be negligible.
Mr Quilter responded that it was accepted that there are no photographs of opioid medication in Mr Carlino’s house or vehicle, and that the Justice Health documents do not record any claim by him that he was using non-prescribed opioid medication, including where the documents suggest he was asked about it, although one record states “…pain killer abuse goes for 3 days max with no analgesia taking 8 panadols all at once…”.
Mr Quilter contended that Mr Carlino’s claims about opioid use should be accepted because of the cogency of his description of the addiction process; that it was plausible, in Dr Ellis’ view, that he was using them to help him sleep and deal with stressful thoughts; there was no motive to lie about the issue; that he may have been less than frank about it as it was obtained without a prescription; and the WhatsApp messages around midday on 20 July 2022 indicate that he was abusing painkillers at the material time: “I have a splitting headache… Taken 6 tablets”.
If was further submitted by Mr Quilter that even if the opioid use issue was resolved against Mr Carlino, the Court would still find that Mr Carlino was experiencing a depressive disorder, and he was not receiving optimal treatment. The following factors were relied upon: his history of depression is well documented, he reported feeling significantly depressed to his GP in the period leading up to the offence, he increased his antidepressant medication himself; he lost weight and was observed to become more disorganised at work in the period leading up to the offence; and he had attempted suicide on two occasions. Finally, it was submitted, that the offence was an act of extreme violence notwithstanding his relatively limited criminal history.
Having considered the evidence and these submissions, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Carlino had a problem with opioid use at the time leading up to the murder. There is no objective evidence to support Mr Carlino’s account when such supportive evidence would be reasonably expected. For instance, it would be expected that some evidence of such use would have been discovered during the execution of the search warrant on the home and on Mr Carlino’s vehicle. When this is also combined with the failure to make any mention of this alleged issue in custody, I am unable to be satisfied to the requisite standard.
However, I am satisfied that he was misusing analgesic pain killers in the period leading up to the murder. My satisfaction is based on the evidence of the text message above at [27] (where he stated he had taken six tablets), his account to Justice Health referred to above at [122], together with the photographs from the police search of the premises and vehicle showing Nurofen (ibuprofen) and Panadol blister packs at various locations. I have taken into account Dr Ellis’ most recent opinion in relation to ibuprofen possibly attenuating the efficacy of antidepressants, albeit no such view is expressed in relation to Panadol.
In any event, I am of the opinion that the combination of the misuse of analgesia together with Mr Carlino increasing his dose of antidepressants, his observed change of appearance, loss of weight and disorganisation at work, as well as two suicide attempts, indicates that there was a genuine decompensation in Mr Carlino’s mental health in the period leading up to the murder such as to reduce, to a degree, his moral culpability for the offending.
I have also considered Mr Carlino’s background of trauma, including violence, and acknowledge that it would mean that he would likely have fewer emotional resources to guide his behavioural decisions, and also, to an extent, it would have normalised violence. These factors are also no doubt bound up with his longstanding depressive illness. All of these factors reduce his moral culpability to an extent (albeit I have been careful not to double count any factor): R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 at [69]; Williams v R [2022] NSWCCA 15 at [131].
Mr Quilter also contended that these factors meant that Mr Carlino is a less appropriate medium for general deterrence. I accept that the significance of general deterrence is slightly reduced on these bases.
The statement of Ms Kumar’s mother, Roshani Kumar, was read to the court by a family member.
The statement set out that Shereen was everything to their family. Her sudden death has shattered her and her husband’s lives, leaving a void in their hearts that nothing can fill. Her sister is also grieving deeply.
Shereen was a lovely, caring person with a beautiful soul, always happy and smiling. Her children were her entire world. Roshani Kumar worries how they will navigate their lives without their mother.
Celebrations will never be the same again without Shereen. Her beautiful smile lit up every room, and she had a warm loving way that touched everyone she met. They were so proud of her.
The pain of losing Shereen is compounded by the senseless violent way her life was taken. Not only was Shereen’s life taken, but her children are left motherless, her family broken, and there is an irreplaceable void in the lives of everyone who knew her. She is missed beyond measure.
Shereen Kumar’s son also read out a statement on behalf of himself and his younger sister. This showed the most immense courage. The Court acknowledges what must have been a profoundly difficult thing for him to do and is grateful to have heard from him.
He stated that he was 12 years old and his sister was 7 years old when they found out the news about their mum. He and his sister were confused and shocked. Even at his young age, he had to participate in religious rituals for her funeral.
He and his sister lived between their mum and dad’s house growing up. He remembers some favourite things about her. He misses her cooking and baking and that she was always nice and friendly to everyone.
Their mum always loved them unconditionally, no matter what. She had a big smile and gave them lots of hugs to show how much she loved them.
The chicken curry she used to make is now made by their dad and they call it “mumma’s chicken”.
His mum was very proud of his swimming, especially when he qualified for State. Since her death, he has received a couple of awards at school, and he wished she could be there to see him presented with them. She would have been really proud to see him in his Army Cadet uniform, having recently joined the Army Cadets.
He misses not being able to celebrate their birthdays with his mother anymore, as their birthdays were a few days apart. He hates not being able to celebrate special occasions or milestones with his mother. She will never get to see him at his high school graduation, learn to drive a car or see him at his first job. She will never get to see him without his braces.
The Court was also provided with a number of photos of Shereen with her children which are incredibly poignant, and which show a loving, smiling mother with her children.
The victim impact statements were powerful and provided the Court with insight into who Shereen was and the impact of her death on her family. I am acutely conscious of the fact that neither words nor the imposition of a sentence can restore the loss of a loved one or assuage the grief caused to this family. But it is important that the impact of the offender’s actions upon the victim’s loved ones be recognised and never forgotten. On behalf of this Court, I extend my sympathies and sincere condolences to Shereen Kumar’s family.
Taking into account all of the matters referred to above, I impose a sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment. Reflecting the finding of special circumstances, I impose a non-parole period of 15 years with the sentence to commence on 23 July 2022.
Vincent Carlino, the offence of murder is a “serious violence offence” as defined in s 5A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). I direct your legal advisers to advise you as to the possible legal consequences that may arise at the conclusion of the sentence.
Vincent Carlino, for the murder of Shereen Kumar, I sentence you to imprisonment for 21 years. Pursuant to ss 44(1) and (2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I set a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 23 July 2022, and an additional term of 6 years commencing on 23 July 2037 and ending on 22 July 2043.
**********
Add quotation mark to end of [77].
R
Carlino [2025] NSWSC 480
(2010) 242 CLR 520
(2005) 228 CLR 357
(2011) 244 CLR 120
(2013) 249 CLR 600