6 On 27 October 2003 the appellant, Francesco Mario Monardo, who was born in April 1941, pleaded guilty on arraignment in the Trial Division at Melbourne to one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Lynda Monardo, his then estranged wife of 37 years, on 7 February 2003. Mrs. Monardo was aged 54 at the time of the offence. The maximum penalty for the offence was imprisonment for 20 years. The appellant had no prior convictions.
7 That day a plea in mitigation of penalty was conducted before the sentencing judge. The prosecutor tendered booklets of photographs, a victim impact statement by Mrs. Monardo, a report from her medical practitioner, two reports from psychologists and two reports from physiotherapists. Counsel for the appellant tendered a report by Mr. Ian Joblin, forensic psychologist, dated 20 October 2003 and an addendum of the same date, a report dated 4 March 2003 by the appellant's general practitioner and a testimonial letter from two union colleagues of the appellant, and called a son of the appellant and Anthony Murphy, one of those unionists, as witnesses.
8 On 6 November 2003 his Honour sentenced the appellant to be imprisoned for 14 years, fixed a non-parole period of ten years and made a declaration as to pre-sentence detention of 273 days.
9 On 10 September 2003 the appellant gave notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. On 3 December 2004 a single Judge of Appeal, pursuant to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958, gave the appellant leave to appeal.
10 Before the ground of appeal can be considered it is necessary to state in summary the facts of the offence and certain facts personal to the appellant and to indicate the course of reasoning in his Honour's sentencing remarks. The appellant's marriage had slowly broken down over a number of years. His wife left the matrimonial home on 29 November 2002 and since that time negotiations, both in person and through solicitors, had been taking place between the spouses about the disposal and division of the matrimonial property. The appellant was very upset and angry, especially at the prospect of not being able to keep the matrimonial home for himself. He was anxious and depressed. He took sick leave from 13 January. He did not know where his wife was residing but knew both her place of employment and that she travelled to work each day by train from Geelong. (She had gone there to live with her former husband, whom she had divorced in order to marry the appellant.) On 20 January 2003 he purchased a "cut-throat" razor. He purchased it with the intention of using it in an attack on his wife which he had planned for 22 January, the 37th anniversary of their meeting. He bound a portion of the blade and the handle with electrical tape so that the razor stayed fixed open, no longer hinged in the manner of a cut-throat razor. On 22 January the appellant waited over twelve hours at Spencer Street station from the early hours of the morning until the evening intending to confront and attack his wife after handing her flowers which he had specially bought, but he did not see her that day.
11 On 6 February the appellant received from his solicitors a letter to them from his wife's solicitors proposing a final settlement of matrimonial property and in particular proposing that the matrimonial home be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. He became angered and decided he would attack his wife the next morning.[6] (The letter was found in the house, torn up, after the assault of 7 February.) The same day, 6 February, he ordered a taxi to collect him from his home at 5.10 a.m. the next day. On 7 February the taxi duly collected him and took him to a station where he caught a train to Spencer Street station, arriving there at about 5.25 a.m. After waiting there for some time he walked to his wife's place of employment at 565 Bourke Street. He waited there from about 6.30 a.m. in a position where he was able to keep a watch on the two entrances to the building, the second being in Church Street, a small street running south to Little Collins Street from the southern side of Bourke Street. He had the cut-throat razor in the pocket of his overalls. Mrs. Monardo approached the place of employment shortly before 8 a.m. The appellant grabbed her by the jacket and pushed her against the wall of the building at 565 Bourke Street. He said that if he could not have her no-one would. She begged him not to hurt her and repeated that as the attack continued. He then commenced attacking her with the cut-throat razor: holding her in position, he commenced slashing her face with the razor. He cut her deeply in the back of the neck, down the left side of the neck and under the chin. She was terrified. He continued cutting and slashing her body. She received a deep cut to her right hand as she tried to defend herself. During the attack she fell to the footpath and held her neck together with her hands to stop herself from bleeding to death. She lay very still in the hope that the appellant would desist. He then sat down near her on the footpath and watched her. A number of people who had witnessed the incident tried to assist Mrs. Monardo but were kept at bay by the appellant, who said, amongst other things, that it was his wife of 37 years and did not concern them. A Salvation Army officer who persisted in his attempts to help the victim was not only told to stay back but was also told by the appellant that he would kill him if he came closer. The police arrived at 8.05 a.m. and arrested the appellant. After receiving urgent medical attention, Mrs. Monardo was conveyed by ambulance to The Royal Melbourne Hospital.
12 The appellant told the police that he had also stabbed his wife with a screwdriver which he claimed to have found on the railway station. However, although it seems that he had the screwdriver in his hand at some stage in the course of the attack, there seem to be no injuries to Mrs. Monardo's body that were consistent with a stab with a screwdriver.
13 Mrs. Monardo was brought to the hospital's Emergency Department at 8.37 a.m. and was seen immediately by the trauma team. She was fully conscious, had an elevated pulse and a systolic blood pressure in the normal range. The most significant of the incised wounds was a 20 centimetre long, deep laceration to the left side of her neck, extending from the left side of her chin to the mastoid process. There was also another laceration, of five centimetres in length, to the left side of the neck, below the laceration of 20 centimetres. The other lacerations recorded by a member of the trauma team were a 14 centimetre[7] long, oblique, superficial wound at the left edge of the sternum; a superficial wound to the left abdomen at approximately the level of the umbilicus; a 15 centimetre long, deep, oblique wound in the left renal angle/loin region; a superficial wound to the right palm from the base of the ring finger to the base of the thumb, which was consistent with its being a defensive wound; a 10 to 12 centimetre long wound to the left upper triceps, which went through the subcutaneous fat but no deeper; and a superficial laceration under the left eye of some three and a half centimetres. There was also bruising to the left wrist and right elbow. The injuries required not only suturing, analgesia and antibiotics, but subsequent plastic surgery. The plastic and reconstructive surgeon stated about a month after the incident that Mrs. Monardo's neck muscle and left ear numbness would take many months to recover.
14 A medical practitioner, who examined Mrs. Monardo on 1 May 2003, that is, nearly three months after the attack on her, stated that she was profoundly affected in many ways. She suffered badly depressive symptoms with anxiety at a high level at most times. The effect upon her family weighed heavily upon her. Back at work, she had poor concentration and poor recall, affecting her work performance. She could not sit down to concentrate and read. In public she was hyper-vigilant and suspicious. Her scarring left her self-conscious in public and her self-confidence was considerably reduced. She had reduced function in her left arm, especially when trying to elevate it to or above shoulder level. The doctor expressed the opinion that there would continue to be improvement slowly over the following months, but he considered that she would have some permanent psychological and physical scars. A psychologist who had seen Mrs. Monardo on five occasions from 19 February to 2 May 2003 stated that she was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and continued to use anti-depressant and tranquilising medication. She considered that psychological counselling for a further 12 months would be necessary. A physiotherapist, Rick Clingan, reported on 6 May 2003 that Mrs. Monardo's superficial injuries were resolving well but she would always have superficial and subcutaneous tissue scarring which might cause some permanent tightness of neck and left shoulder movements. Damage to a motor nerve intrinsic to the movement of her left shoulder and arm had resulted in a decrease of power and a subsequent decrease of movement and function, making it likely that she would have a permanent deficit of left arm movement and strength and therefore function. Finally, another physiotherapist, Martha Azzopardi, reported on 13 October 2003 that she was concentrating on the other main area, the neck and jaw. She was of the opinion that with persistence the discomfort would ease somewhat and the function and movement would increase.
15 In case the sentencing discretion fell to be re-exercised by this Court counsel for the appellant informed the court that Mrs. Monardo, who was present in court, said that she had made a full recovery and that her scarring was now minor.
16 In her victim impact statement declared on 21 October 2003 Mrs. Monardo said that the event and its after effects on her family had shattered the foundation of her life. She could not understand why her husband had attacked her.
17 The appellant was interviewed by police at very great length (some 1,763 questions) on the day of the assault. In the course of the interview he stated that his intention had been to stab his wife for revenge on behalf of his children and grandchildren, so that she would have some feeling because she had cheated them very badly. He said that he did not want her to die, but to live to remember. "She hurt me, I hurt her back", he said. If he had been going to kill her he would have used a gun, but this was to give her pain. If she did die he would not feel sorry. The way she had hurt him in the last years, she had to feel something back. He was not saying that he was feeling sorry for what he had done because if he saw her on the street he would still stab her. The children and grandchildren still loved her and, he seemed to say, he did in his heart, but he repeated that if he saw her on the street he would stab her. He repeated that he wanted to injure her seriously, to make something to remember. At another point, after professing his love for her, he stated that he hated her more than anything in the world. He described the planning of his attack on her and the earlier occasion when he had lain in wait for her. Later he said that she was still perhaps alive but she was not going to enjoy life. The prosecutor below relied on the recorded interview, submitting that the whole tenor of it was that, whilst he did not intend to kill her, he wanted to leave her in a position where she would not forget him, in order to avenge the wrong he perceived her to have done. As the prosecutor submitted, there was not a shred of remorse in it.
18 In his report Mr. Joblin, noting that the appellant's psychological condition deteriorated significantly after the discussion of separation in November 2002, was of the opinion that the impact of the breakdown of a relationship such as the appellant's paralleled that of grief. The appellant had informed him that prior to November 2002 he had considered everything to be satisfactory in his relationship with his wife. The appellant acknowledged that there had been difficulties over the years but he believed they had been resolved. When he was then told by his wife that she was leaving there was, in Mr. Joblin's opinion, a significant psychological conflict with which he was simply unable to cope. He decided to attack the source of the conflict, his wife. The psychological basis of the offence, therefore, Mr. Joblin considered, related to the violation of an expectation, the expectation in this case being that the relationship would continue. It should be mentioned that his Honour did not adopt all Mr. Joblin's views without qualification.
19 Mr. Murphy said in evidence that the appellant was a hard working, experienced and very competent sprinkler fitter, who trained new workers and was very generous.
20 Antonio Monardo gave evidence of his father's strong work ethic, his primary concern for his family, the deterioration in his marriage, his inability to understand his wife's reason for leaving, and his inability at the end to manage household chores and finances without assistance.
21 In his sentencing remarks his Honour sketched the history of the appellant's meeting of and marrying his wife and the early part of their marriage. He then stated that in more recent years they had drifted apart. The appellant valued his male friends at the Italian Club. Too often he drank too much and came home belligerent. For a long time his wife put up with that behaviour although she did not like it. It was the appellant's perception that her attitude was unreasonable. The two continued to live in the same house, but lived separate lives. Their four sons had problems and those problems imposed for the strains on husband and wife. Speaking of Mrs. Monardo's leaving the matrimonial home and moving to Geelong, his Honour, addressing the appellant, said: