Vittorio Stefanato has pleaded guilty to the murder of Christine Neilan at Lightning Ridge on or about 8 January 2020. He has also pleaded guilty to a related summary offence of possessing a .22 calibre rifle without a licence or permit at Lightning Ridge on 15 October 2021.
Murder is a crime punishable by life imprisonment. There is also a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The rifle possession offence has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years but because it came to this Court as a related summary offence the sentence may not exceed 2 years.
[2]
Agreed facts as to the offending
The offender lived in Lightning Ridge and occupied three opal mining claims which were identified as lots 76, 77 and 78 in a particular deposited plan. Various forms of dwellings were on each of the lots, which were referred to as his "camp". One of the structures was called "Amigo's Castle" and was something of a tourist attraction.
Certain people in Lighting Ridge, including intravenous drug users, harassed the offender for money both before and after the murder. In the period December 2019 to July 2021, he paid out more than $50,000 to such people. Apprehended violence orders were obtained in respect of a number of them.
The grounds for an application made by police for an AVO against Melissa Morris in July 2020 stated:
"For a considerable length of time there have been ongoing issues with a group of individuals in the Lightning Ridge community attending the local tourist attraction Amigo's Castle [the offender's camp] and hassling [the offender] for money. Such is the harassment and bullying tactics employed by these people, that local police are aware of the situation and have been encouraging [the offender] to contact police when these regular incidents occur. Typically these people hound [the offender] for money to the point that he often hands over cash (ranging between $50 and $200) just to be left alone… [It] is common practice for the [individuals] to continually harass and bully [the offender] until he inevitably hands over the cash."
The offender gave evidence during the hearing this morning in which he said that he was receiving the aged pension and over five or six years he had managed to save up $100,000 which he intended to use to buy a place back in Italy. However he was withdrawing money from his bank account to enable him to give money to the people who were harassing him.
Returning to the agreed facts, police asked the offender why he had murdered Ms Neilan. He referred to being "so under stress" from the demands of these people. He said that on the day of the murder he was "in the frame of mind, like, I can't have this …".
When asked why he continued making these payments after the murder he said, "I don't know. Maybe … to make believe that … make them think that I never killed anybody."
The offender had met Ms Neilan three times. He told police that on each occasion she had asked him for money, the last being on 7 January 2020 at the Lightning Ridge Bowling Club. The latter event was confirmed by CCTV footage from the club.
The offender also said to police, "It shouldn't have happened. I think it happened to probably the wrong woman … because she didn't deserve to be killed."
The Crown accepts the following account of the murder provided by the offender.
On 8 January 2020 the offender was at his camp. Melissa Morris arrived at about 10am and the pair sat at a table in a garage on Lot 76 and had a conversation. Ms Neilan arrived and joined them at about 11am. Ms Morris and Ms Neilan both asked the offender for money. He put $100 on the table with the intention that they would each take $50, however Ms Morris took it all and left.
Ms Neilan asked for more money. The offender said he did not have any and told her to leave. She did not. They continued in conversation which was described as "friendly". Ultimately however the offender said, "Look, I haven't got any money anymore. I don't want to go to the bank to get the money … I'm going over there to the shed, I get the gun, and if you're still here, I shoot you."
The offender went to a building on Lot 77 and retrieved a .22 calibre rifle (for which he did not have a licence). This took him a minute or so. He then walked back to the garage on Lot 76 and Ms Neilan stood up. From a short distance (in his walkthrough interview he said the muzzle was an inch, or half an inch, away) he intentionally shot her in the head. She was killed instantly.
He moved the body out of the garage and covered it with carpet underlay. He attempted to clean up the blood in the garage with a bucket of water and a broom. He then had several glasses of wine and went to sleep for about three hours. He woke up later in the afternoon and went to the bank and the bowling club (signing in so as to create an alibi). He later disposed of Ms Neilan's phone in a mailbox at the post office.
The offender returned to the location of the body that night. He tied electrical cable around the ankles and rope around the neck and moved it to about 10 metres from the fence and gate of Lot 76. He used a rake to disguise the drag marks but the body was easily seen from the road.
At about 6am on 9 January 2020 the offender found Ms Neilan's thongs in the garage and put them on her body. The body was found a little later that morning.
The offender was spoken to by police on a number of occasions. He told lies to conceal his guilt and deflect the investigation. Over a year after the murder, in March 2021, his DNA was found on one of Ms Neilan's thongs. It was a further seven months later when his camp was searched. He continued to deny his guilt. However, a few days later, on 18 October 2021, he sought out police and made a full confession, including participating in a "walk-through" interview. He also admitted to possession of the unlicensed firearm and told police where it could be found. He conceded in his evidence this morning that he was aware that the police investigation was closing in on him at the time he made his confession.
On 30 May 2022 the offender signed a statement indicating he would be prepared to give evidence in criminal proceedings concerning Melissa Morris in accordance with the content of his interview of 18 October 2021. Ms Morris had lied to police about being present with Ms Neilan at the offender's place on 7 January 2020. If she had told the truth she would have provided police with a highly useful lead in their investigation. She was charged with hindering an investigation, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years. However, the prosecution is being finalised in the Local Court where the jurisdictional sentencing limit is 2 years. Ms Morris has pleaded guilty and is to appear for sentence at Walgett Local Court next Tuesday.
[3]
The offender's background and personal circumstances
Evidence of the offender's background and personal circumstances was provided in a report by Dr Katie Seidler, forensic psychologist. He said in his evidence this morning that he provided Dr Seidler with a truthful account and that the content of her report is accurate. There was no controversy about the content of the report which I have no hesitation in accepting.
The offender was born in northern Italy in 1947 and is now aged 75. He had a positive and happy upbringing and an uneventful transition to adulthood. He came to Australia at the age of 22. He has permanent residency but has not sought citizenship. He appears to have maintained consistent employment in various unskilled positions until taking an aged pension at age 65. There is no medical history of note and nor are there any issues with alcohol or substance abuse. He has not had any long-term relationships.
Dr Seidler noted that the offender struggled with depression and a sense of purposeless and hopelessness at the lack of achievement and establishment of a relationship and family. This was the context in which he began to build his "castle" which gave him a sense of purpose and success in addition to standing in the community.
The offender's account of his offending provided to Dr Seidler was consistent with what appears in the statement of agreed facts. He told Dr Seidler that Ms Neilan "didn't deserve to be killed, she was the victim of me killing her because of all the other people".
Dr Seidler wrote that the offender "expressed seemingly genuine and appropriate regret and remorse for his actions and the impact on the victim and for her family and the community in general". She said he expressed to her that he was "comfortable" and "peaceful" being in gaol as he knows he needs to "pay for what (he) did", even if this meant spending the rest of his life in prison. In his evidence, the offender reiterated his deep sorrow for what he had done but he understood that this was no consolation.
The offender has been held on protection whilst on remand out of concern by the authorities for retribution by members of the deceased's extended family. He told Dr Seidler that he had not been threatened and felt safe. He has spent his time playing cards and checkers as he is too old to work.
He gave evidence of having passed through Wellington Correctional Centre on his way to appear at Court today. A fellow inmate who said he was aware the offender had murdered Ms Neilan threatened him with severe physical harm unless he moved to another section of the gaol (which the offender did).
Dr Seidler concluded her report with positive assessments of the offender. She said he had no criminogenic needs requiring intervention or management; no mental health or substance abuse issues; he impressed as inherently prosocial; he took responsibility for his offending behaviour and any punishment he will receive; and he was likely to be compliant and respectful as a correctional centre inmate and potential parolee.
The age of the offender was the subject of specific submissions. A life expectancy table sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that 75-year-old males live for an average of a further 12.7 years.
The offender's advanced age appears to be relevant in two respects. Although he is not presently experiencing any significant physical health difficulties, there is a real possibility that such difficulties may arise during the course of serving his sentence. I am also mindful of the fact that the offender will face a substantially reduced period for living a useful life after being released on parole. For these reasons, serving a sentence of imprisonment will likely be more onerous than it is for the majority of inmates. It is necessary to bear in mind, however, that the sentence must remain proportionate to the gravity of the crime.
[4]
Objective seriousness of the offending
Submissions have been made by both parties as to the objective seriousness of the offending. Counsel for the offender suggested that some guidance could be found in the analysis of Harrison J in R v Ceniccola [2011] NSWSC 302. I have made my own assessment.
The act of shooting the deceased was not absent any forethought or entirely spontaneous. It was preceded by the offender stating his threat to shoot and then giving effect to it by walking to a nearby location to retrieve the rifle, returning, raising the weapon and discharging it. Intentionally killing a defenceless woman by shooting her in the head at close range is an extraordinarily callous and gravely serious act of murder. It was a senseless yet brutal thing to do. It is conceded to be aggravated by the subsequent attempts to conceal the body and evidence pertaining to the crime. The objective seriousness of this offence is high.
Being angry and stressed by the constant demands of people for money that the offender felt unable to resist is hardly an excuse and is certainly not a matter of mitigation. Ms Neilan did not deserve to be singled out by the offender for his anger or frustration over, or retribution for, the reprehensible conduct of others. Her own involvement in such conduct was comparatively limited. The fact that the shooting was an act that occurred in the moment is relevant; but if it had been premeditated for longer than it was, it would approach the upper end of the scale of seriousness.
[5]
Subjective mitigating factors
The offender has no significant record of previous convictions and appears to have been of prior good character. While for a long time after the murder (21 months) he was not, he is now genuinely remorseful. He has good prospects of rehabilitation. He is unlikely to reoffend.
The law requires that for a plea of guilty entered in the Local Court the sentence be reduced by 25%.
The assistance provided in relation to the prosecution of Ms Morris warrants a further quantified reduction in the sentence. Although submissions were not specifically directed to each of them, I have considered all of the matters listed in s 23(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), some of which are relevant and others not. The assistance was accepted to be truthful and was of significance in enabling police to institute proceedings against her. It was not particularly timely and I note the Crown submission that the hindering of the police investigation by Ms Morris enabled the offender himself to avoid the consequences of his offending for a considerable period.
In balancing the various matters relevant to this issue, I propose to allow a further 5% reduction in the offender's sentence.
[6]
Victim impact statement(s)
Family victim impact statements were provided by Ms Stacey Dench and Ms Shauna Dench, both sisters of Ms Neilan, and by Ms Julianne Neilan, the eldest of her four children. They are very moving statements that tell of the enormous grief and loss caused to so many people by the offender's senseless crime. It can only be hoped that in time the love and support Ms Neilan provided to her mother, her siblings, her children and her grandchildren will provide memories of comfort that will overcome the trauma and grief. On behalf of the Court, I express my sincere sympathy to all of Ms Neilan's family and friends.
[7]
Other sentence considerations
General deterrence, punishment, denunciation, recognising the harm done and making the offender accountable are important purposes of sentencing in a case such as this. On the other hand, it is not a case in which personally deterring the offender from future criminal conduct is significant.
The offender has been held in custody since his arrest on 18 October 2021 and so his sentence must be backdated.
The firearm offence on its own would not warrant a sentence of imprisonment. A conviction without penalty is the appropriate outcome.
A submission has been made that I should have regard to the terms of a sentence imposed in R v Ceniccola. It is the decision of a single judge that did not receive any appellate review. I am more concerned to comply with authorities which speak of the need for consistency in the application of principles as opposed to numerical or mathematical consistency: Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 at [18], [49].
There are circumstances that might militate in favour of a lesser proportion of the sentence being represented by the non-parole period. It was submitted that "the offender's first time in custody and his advanced age" constituted "special circumstances". Those matters, and other factors potentially relevant to this issue, have already been taken into account in assessing the overall term. None of them have additional significance to qualify as "special" so as to justify a further reduction of the non-parole period which, of course, must bear an appropriate relationship with the gravity of the offence.
Theoretically, the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) has potential application to the offender and I ask his solicitor to explain the ramifications of this for him.
[8]
Sentence
For each offence: Convicted.
Murder: Sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 13 years and 7 months and a balance of term of 4 years and 7 months. That is a total sentence of 18 years and 2 months. If not for the plea of guilty and assistance it would have been a sentence of 26 years.
The sentence will date from 18 October 2021. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 17 May 2035.
Possess firearm without licence or permit: No penalty imposed.
[9]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 10 February 2023
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
R
Respondent/Defendant:
Stefanato
Legislation Cited (3)
Theoretically, the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006(NSW)