HER HONOUR: Mark Vella has been described by those who knew and loved him as a "larrikin", and a "top bloke". He was a family man who owned and operated with his family a small business based in the Canberra area. He had a wide circle of friends, including his closest friends who were part of his extended family. He enjoyed a full life of fishing, camping, cooking meals for his family, and socialising with them and friends, despite a visual impairment. With much to live for, and aged only about 50, Mr Vella's life was violently ended when he was shot dead by his wife, the offender, Dale Vella.
The offender entered a plea of not guilty to the murder of Mark Vella when she was arraigned before a jury panel on 11 April 2023, and her trial proceeded until 21 April 2023, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge. Having been convicted of the offence on the same day as the verdict was returned, today Mrs Vella is to be sentenced for the murder of her husband, a crime she committed on 9 August 2021, at the family home at Murrumbateman.
Murder is an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; in the circumstances of this case a standard non-parole period of 20 years applies.
[2]
The Facts of the Offence
The principles governing fact finding by a trial judge for the purpose of sentencing were given in R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; 90 A Crim R 587 at 377-8. Among them, that facts found for the purpose of sentencing must be consistent with the jury's verdict, that findings of fact adverse to an offender must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and also that there is no requirement that an offender should be sentenced upon a view of the facts most favourable to him or her. Matters favourable to the offender need only be established to the lower civil standard of proof.
What occurred on the late night of 9 August 2021 is clearly established by the evidence given at trial. Why it occurred is much less clear and may never be known.
On that day Mark Vella and his life-long friend, David Borg, left the Vella home at Murrumbateman at about 6:30am to drive to work at a site in the Australian Capital Territory where the Vella family company was engaged. Mr Vella returned home at about lunchtime with his daughter Georgia Vella, who also worked for the company. Mr Borg, who stayed at the Murrumbateman house during the working week, returned a little later, at some time after 4:30pm. The offender had spent the day at the house, attending to some administrative duties for the company. She had been feeling depressed.
After Ms Vella and her father arrived home, Ms Vella saw her mother sitting with the family dogs for a time. When one of the dogs was noted to be missing, the offender and Ms Vella rode on a quad bike to a rear paddock on the property in search of the dog. Once the dog was returned to the house, the offender and Mr Vella carried firewood into the house and stacked it, and then sat together with their daughter watching television.
Christopher Templeton, the offender's son, placed a FaceTime call to her and Mr Vella that afternoon and spoke with them. Mr Templeton thought that everything seemed normal between the couple, and he did not detect anything unusual or untoward. The offender was tearful at some point during the half an hour call, but Mr Templeton believed that to be because she had not been able to meet his six-week-old daughter, with he and his family subject to a pandemic "lock-down" and unable to travel to Murrumbateman.
Later, Georgia and Mr Borg shared an evening meal, prepared by Mr Vella, with him and the offender. Both Ms Vella and Mr Borg noticed that the offender did not eat much, and she was quiet during the evening. Mr Vella and the offender fell asleep after dinner, whilst watching television in the lounge room of the home. After attending to some business matters, Mr Borg retired to his bedroom in the house. Georgia also went to bed, in a converted stable block on the property. Later that night Mr Borg was woken by the sound of a loud bang, followed soon after by someone knocking on his bedroom door. He opened the door to see the offender standing in her nightclothes. She told him, "Call an ambulance, I've shot him. I was going to shoot myself, but I shot him". She was referring to her husband Mark.
Mr Borg went to his friend's bedroom where, from the doorway, he could see Mr Vella lying in bed. He saw blood and could not enter the room. Mr Borg returned to his own bedroom, got his mobile telephone, and called the emergency operator. As he spoke to the operator Mr Borg went to the stable block and woke Georgia Vella, who was then aged about 21 years.
Taking over the telephone call with the emergency operator, Ms Vella went with Mr Borg to her father's bedroom. Although she later tortured herself with groundless self-recriminations for her failure to assist her father, Mark Vella was dead when Georgia reached his bedroom. There was nothing she or anyone else could have done to assist him.
At some stage after Mr Borg and Ms Vella had each retired for the night, the offender had taken up a double-barrelled shotgun and, as her husband slept in their bed, she levelled the gun at his face, holding it so that the muzzle was touching or very close to his right eye, and pulled the trigger, discharging one barrel of the shotgun into his face. It is likely that the whole of the load of shot contained within the 12-gauge cartridge entered Mr Vella's eye, face, and skull. The injury occasioned to him was catastrophic, and he died instantly. Later, another two unfired rounds were found secreted in a pair of slippers near the bed, whilst another round was taken from the second barrel of the gun.
The shotgun and four cartridges had been removed by the offender at some stage that day from a gun safe kept in the garage of the family home, and then taken to the bedroom she shared with her husband. The offender was familiar with guns, holding a shooter's license and having gone on occasional shooting trips with her husband in the past. She was a confident and capable shooter who owned firearms and was well aware of gun safety procedures.
The offender loaded both barrels of the shotgun, and put the two remaining cartridges in the slippers. It was the upper barrel that she discharged into her husband's face; the cartridge in the lower barrel was later removed intact by a police officer who attended the scene and rendered the firearm safe.
After seeing her father Ms Vella confronted her mother, asking her, "What did you do". The offender replied, "He can't hurt us anymore", a comment rejected by Georgia, who responded, "He wasn't hurting us". The offender told her daughter that "it was meant to be me", apparently referring to an intention to commit suicide.
The offender was arrested at the scene. Some assessment was undertaken of her by the arresting officer and the custody officer who received her at Yass Police Station. The offender made no complaint of injury or illness initially, but later complained of feeling dizzy, which she attributed to having eaten very little for three days. The custody officer, Sergeant Mijok, did not observe the offender to appear irrational, agitated, or unwell. Because of the complaint of dizziness, however, an ambulance was called, and the offender was examined by a paramedic some minutes after midnight, on 10 August 2021. She was noted to be alert, fully oriented, and all vital signs were within the normal range. She was not in a state of clinical shock or otherwise medically compromised.
The offender was interviewed by detectives on 10 August 2021 (Ex. K). She told the officers that she had been feeling anxious over the preceding week, but did not know why. She said that she had been prescribed Venlafaxine as an anti-anxiety medication a few days earlier, having previously taken the drug for a couple of years at around the time she was diagnosed with and treated for cancer.
The offender also said that she held a shooter's license, had a number of guns registered to her, and was aware that a shotgun took "big pellets". She otherwise exercised her right to silence.
That same morning the offender spoke by telephone to her son Christopher, who asked her why she had done it. She responded, "I don't know".
After transfer to a prison the offender spoke with an intake officer, on 12 August 2021. She told the officer that she had been "psychologically abused" by her husband during their marriage. The offender said:
"I was going to kill myself with the gun. I don't know why I turned the gun on my husband".
She said her husband had not done anything to precipitate her actions, as he was asleep. She reported feeling anxious. The offender was able to make telephone calls to her youngest son Daniel Templeton, and to Georgia. She told Georgia about a video that she had recorded on her mobile telephone before the shooting.
In that video (Ex. H), recorded early on 9 August 2021 and directed to her children, the offender said in part:
"I just… can't live like this anymore. I've let him abuse you emotionally for years. […] I've tried leaving, I've tried pushing him away, it won't work. He won't listen. He doesn't care about anybody but himself [….]."
The evidence was that none of the offender's children believed that Mr Vella had abused them or their mother. Each spoke of him as a loving father and committed family man.
On 12 August 2021, Mr Vella's body was examined by a forensic pathologist. Dr Rianie Van Vuuren observed a large entry wound around Mr Vella's right eye; and an exit wound to the right side of the cranium. The wound tracked front to back and slightly upwards. Gunshot residue was noted on the left side of Mr Vella's face, and there was soot from the blast on much of his face. The shotgun blast had been discharged at or near contact range such that the contents of the fired cartridge, including the fibrous wadding and the polymer wad, together with multiple pellets, were found inside Mr Vella's skull. Propellant powder had been forced into the surface layer of his skin.
[3]
Other Factual Matters Relevant to Sentence
At her trial, the offender advanced a case in which she sought to portray her husband as an aggressive and controlling man who allowed her no freedom. She gave inconsistent accounts of violence. The phrase "coercive control" was repeatedly used.
There was no evidence to support that portrayal of Mr Vella, and much to contradict it. Georgia Vella and her half-brothers Christopher and Daniel Templeton, whilst accepting that Mark Vella could be a difficult man who had a quick if short-lived temper, each rejected any suggestion that he was violent, aggressive, or abusive. Whilst Daniel had had some issues with his step-father when he was growing up, any arguments or other disputes were described as the ordinary dissension that frequently occurs within family life.
Ms Vella described her parents' relationship as a generally stable one. Her mother and father had taken holidays together, which Ms Vella had understood both to have enjoyed. She saw verbal arguments between them from time to time, and her father sometimes yelled at her mother, causing the offender to retreat to her bedroom, frequently in tears. Despite that, and although Ms Vella acknowledged that her father could be a difficult man to live with, she never observed any violence or abuse between her parents, and she rejected the suggestion that her father was controlling or domineering with her mother. Her observations were echoed by those of her half-brother, Christopher Templeton, who observed arguments between his mother and step-father during their twenty or so years of marriage, but never saw Mr Vella hit the offender, and noted that, whilst Mr Vella had a temper, he calmed down readily. He had never heard his mother complain of any fears for her physical or emotional well-being due to Mr Vella's conduct. Daniel Templeton, the offender's youngest son, saw arguments between Mr and Mrs Vella that he regarded as "a normal couple fighting" (T151:31).
There had been some tensions between the couple in recent times due to financial problems faced by the company with a downturn in business during the pandemic, and Mr Vella occasionally lost his temper, although always recovering it quickly. The offender may have perceived her husband as unsupportive or even oppressive, but there is no evidence at all, and the Court does not accept, that he was in fact abusive, controlling, or violent towards her.
In the days before Mr Vella was murdered Georgia knew her mother to have been depressed, and to have begun taking anti-depressant medication. The offender was observed to be more withdrawn than usual.
There was evidence before the jury that the offender was depressed and others noticed that she had seemed down, or sad. Some days before Mr Vella was murdered she had commenced a low, starting, dose of a common anti-depressant, Venlafaxine, which had been previously prescribed to her, and with which she was familiar. She had been taking a common herbal remedy, St Johns Wort, but had ceased doing so when prescribed Venlafaxine. As was clear from the expert toxicological evidence, that substance had no role to play in the events of 9 August 2021. Equally, the evidence excluded the possibility of a serotonin overdose as having any relevance to the offender's actions on the night of Mr Vella's murder. The offender was not adversely affected by any substance: Ex. J. She was depressed, but was still managing her day to day life.
There was no evidence that could, in my opinion, have supported the partial defence of substantial impairment that the offender sought to raise before the jury, and the jury very properly rejected the claimed defence.
[4]
The Gravity of the Offence
This was a crime of extreme violence, using a weapon, a firearm that was directed at very close or contact range into the face of a man who was entirely vulnerable in sleep, and which caused catastrophic injuries. The only intention the offender could have held in committing an act such as this is an intention to kill.
The crime was committed in what should have been the safety of Mr Vella's home, by a person who had ready access to him because of the relationship of trust between husband and wife. That trust was breached in the most egregious way imaginable.
The offender argued that an offence of murder always involves violence, and thus s 21A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is not enlivened, an argument that is correct. She also submitted that the use of a weapon and the commission of a murder in a home are features so typically found in such crimes that, similarly, they should not be treated as aggravating the gravity of the crime, pursuant to s 21A(2)(c) and (eb). I am unable to accept that argument. It is true that offences of domestic violence frequently occur in the home, but it is not such a common feature of the crime of murder that it should be treated almost as akin to an element of the offence and, as such, not attract the application of s 21A(2). Similarly, whilst murder offences are not infrequently committed by means of a weapon, shooting deaths are still, thankfully, not so common in this State that we should all cease to be shocked by them, or fail to treat them as particularly serious incidents of murder, where the use of a firearm heightens the gravity of the offence.
It is an extremely serious thing for a man to be shot at close range, whilst he slept peacefully in his own bed, with a powerful firearm such as a shotgun that, at that range, could only do the most horrific and inevitably lethal damage to a human head. No level of familiarity with a death of that kind makes it any the less terrible, or any the less grave.
Nor does the absence of other features reduce the seriousness of the crime, as the offender argued. The objective gravity of the offence is not reduced by the absence of prolonged suffering to Mr Vella, or the fact that Mr Vella was not placed in fear prior to being shot dead. The absence of features that could have made the crime more serious do not make it less serious, particularly in the circumstances that apply here. Mr Vella did not suffer a lingering or slow death because of the extreme violence used against him, causing his instant death; he was not placed in fear because he was shot when in the vulnerable position of sleep. These are not features that lessen the seriousness of the offender's crime.
Because the crime was committed in the family home, others were exposed to its direct aftermath, with Georgia Vella and David Borg each having to confront the terrible scene in Mark Vella's bedroom that night. The horror of seeing Mr Vella, a man each knew well and loved, with the truly grievous injuries inflicted on him, is unlikely to ever leave Ms Vella and Mr Borg. For Georgia, her memories of her beloved father will likely be forever tainted by what she saw of his death.
The offender submitted that hers was a spontaneous crime, but that is not established on the balance of probabilities. Dr Eagle opined that the shooting was not an impulsive act. She said that the offender:
"[…] certainly seemed to be in control. I think there was no information to suggest she wasn't in control. The evidence suggests that she laid the gun out prior to this occurring, that she had researched how to use it, that she had a bullet in the gun and spare bullets in her shoe, that immediately after the incident she went and sought help to call an ambulance, that she described what had occurred, that she waited for police, and there was just no information to suggest she wasn't able to control herself in those circumstances. I think in this case also there was nothing to suggest that this was an impulsive or reactive event, where her level of control might have been influenced by her emotion at the time. (T333:26:26 - 35)
All that can be concluded on the evidence is that the offender acted with deliberation in obtaining a shotgun and four cartridges from the locked safe in the garage of her home, and in taking them to her bedroom at some stage that day or evening. On balance, the Court accepts that she had an intention to kill herself with the shotgun, as she told Mr Borg immediately after the shooting, and as is suggested by the internet searches she made many hours before about suicide. It cannot be concluded however, even to the lower standard of proof applicable to such a finding, that this was her only intention. Some evidence suggests that the offender planned to kill her husband as well as herself and, although the evidence does not establish that intention to the criminal standard, nor does the evidence establish to the lesser civil standard that the shooting of Mark Vella was spontaneously done, without prior thought or planning.
If the offender intended to kill only herself, it is curious that she did not carry out her intention earlier that day, at a time when no-one was in the house but her. It is also curious that she would take the gun and four cartridges to the bedroom she shared with her husband where, despite the steps she took to secrete two cartridges in a slipper and to hide the gun, he may have become aware of her suicidal plan and stopped her.
Whilst the offender's counsel referred to Ex. H as a "suicide video", the offender said much more about her husband in the recording than she did about herself. Its content is at least as consistent with an intention to kill him - to stop him "hurting" his family anymore - and then to kill herself, as it is with a solely suicidal intent. The offender's comment to her daughter after she had shot her husband - "he can't hurt us anymore" - is consistent with such an intent, as is the readying of the four shotgun cartridges, enough for two full discharges of both barrels of the shotgun.
The most the Court can conclude is that the offender formed a plan to use the gun and took it and the four cartridges to her bedroom at some stage prior to the shooting. Having made internet searches concerning suicide she probably planned to kill herself; whether she intended to also kill her husband is not known beyond reasonable doubt.
Why she decided to kill him is not established on the evidence to any standard. By her claimed amnesia of the shooting, amnesia inconsistent with a memory that was held immediately after the event, and retained on 12 August 2021, the offender has avoided the need to confront the circumstances of her crime or explain it to her family. It is likely that the offender's motivation in shooting her husband will never be known to those who most wish to understand the crime, her daughter and wider family.
Although the offender argued that her depression reduced her moral culpability for the murder and, in turn, the objective gravity of the crime was lessened, the Court does not accept that contention. The weight of authority on the relevance of moral culpability to the objective seriousness of an offence, including what was said by the High Court in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39, at [27], is that the latter is to be assessed without reference to matters personal to a particular offender.
There was terrible harm done to Mr Vella by the commission of this crime, but also to others, even beyond those who were in or near the bedroom on that night. The widespread damage that the crime of murder causes is one reason that the legislature has placed such a significant maximum penalty against the offence, that of life imprisonment. The violent death of one, harms many. The Court heard moving expressions of the pain and loss caused to others in the four Victim Impact Statements read during the sentencing proceedings, for which the Court is grateful. So many have suffered and will continue to suffer because of the offender's crime. That suffering does not make Mr Vella's murder worse than other crimes of murder; it is part of the reason that murder is such a serious crime. We are all diminished by the violent and too early death of a member of the community.
Objectively, this was an extremely grave crime.
[5]
The Subjective Case
The offender is 54 years old. Prior to the shooting of Mr Vella, the offender had never committed any crime, and she is a person with no previous criminal record. She is also a person of good character: she has worked all her adult life, for many years in a caring role as an assistant in nursing, and she is spoken of by her friend Janelle Dargue as a supportive person who has been devoted to her children. Ms Dargue views this offence as completely outside the character of the woman she knows, and that assessment is clearly an accurate one. The offender must receive the benefit of her formerly unblemished character and the positive contribution made to others through her work and family life when sentence is determined. These are all mitigating features.
There has been much sadness in the offender's life. In 2003 she suffered a miscarriage and, in 2006 she experienced the devastation of the death of her youngest daughter. As might be expected, her child's illness and death affected Mrs Vella very deeply, and is a continuing grief to her. She also felt that this great loss had an adverse effect on her marriage, and that she and Mr Vella did not enjoy any real closeness thereafter. The offender felt unsupported by her husband in her distress, and she felt there were more arguments between she and Mr Vella.
The offender's evidence concerning her husband needs to be approached with caution. She asserted to others that he had an affair or affairs, but under oath could not give any evidence to support her claims. Similarly, she asserted that he was violent towards her, but the evidence she gave did not bear out her complaints, which were in any event inconsistent, contradictory, and disputed by her children and others who had closely observed the couple. Even on balance the Court does not accept the demonisation of Mr Vella. It may, however, be readily accepted that the death of a child could cause significant disharmony between that child's parents, and each may have felt the greater claim to grief at their shared loss. The offender told the jury that the family struggled financially at times, and the offender felt the burden of having to cope with family needs with sometimes limited resources. Financial difficulties can also be readily accepted to be the cause of marital stress - it would be an unusual relationship where there was never any disagreement about such matters.
In 2019 the offender was diagnosed with cancer, and she underwent a double mastectomy and lengthy chemotherapy and radiation therapy thereafter. That frightening and life affecting illness had a great impact on the offender, and it continues to affect her. Although the offender is receiving all necessary treatment in custody to monitor her condition and deal with the sequelae of cancer, including lymphoedema, it is likely that she will feel anxious about her health and the prospect of the possible return of the disease, and that anxiety and the need for continual monitoring will make her time in custody more onerous than for prisoners without that significant health issue.
Those life events left the offender feeling depressed, and she was prescribed an anti-depressant at around the time she was treated for cancer, and again very shortly before the shooting of Mr Vella. The offender told the jury that, at that time, she felt that she wanted to go to sleep and not wake up, that she wanted to die. Despite what I have concluded to be a marked tendency for the offender to (at least) exaggerate her evidence, overall, the evidence establishes on balance that the offender did intend to commit suicide on 9 August 2021, and that she took some preparatory steps to that end, such as telephoning family members.
Both forensic psychiatrists who gave evidence at trial, Dr Kerry Eagle and Dr Olav Nielssen, concluded that the offender's mood was depressed at the time of the shooting, whether that opinion was expressed as an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, or a depressive disorder.
Despite that commonality between the doctors' conclusions, there was some difference in the evidence given at trial, and overall, the Court prefers that of Dr Eagle, which was informed by all relevant information, thoroughly considered, and carefully and thoughtfully expressed. Dr Eagle told the jury that, at around the time of Mr Vella's murder, the offender:
"had a low mood and levels of distress that were related to her perception of her circumstances. She described having long‑term issues with sleep, and fluctuating symptoms, so she described feeling overwhelmed and not being able to cope […] for periods of time and that might impact on her, but overall she was still able to get up every morning and go about her daily tasks. She could do the wages for the business. She was able to participate in social interactions. She had periods where people observed she seemed 'spacey' which could mean a number of things, it could mean that she was preoccupied, distracted, feeling a bit overwhelmed, but then she seemed to be able to regain her composure generally, according to her account and the account of the witnesses." (T326:48 - T327:09)
Dr Eagle distinguished the offender's condition from a major depressive disorder. She said:
"[…] if someone for instance was reporting low energy in the context of a major severe depressive episode you would not expect them to jump on a quad bike and interact in that way in my experience. You might see that they don't get out of bed in the mornings. You will see that they lose weight because they don't eat, they don't remember to eat because they have impaired concentration. They don't remember what they have to do. In a very severe state people don't often get help for their symptoms because they don't even recognise that they don't have the motivation or energy or awareness to even recognise that they could get help.
[…]
[…] M[r]s Vella did describe a number of disturbances of mood that arose in the context of her circumstances. She described feeling distressed. She described disrupted sleep. She described feeling agitation, some patchy concentration and some suicidal thoughts and from a psychiatric perspective that would be regarded as over what would be expected in the circumstances or more excessive than what would be expected in say a marital breakdown generally, where you might have periods of feeling low in mood but you would be able to have internal coping mechanisms to cope, and there seemed to be a level of disturbance that went beyond that and so that would make it significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, which is actually a very common term in clinical diagnostic classification symptoms." (T327:14 - 37)
Overall, Dr Eagle did not regard the offender as having been substantially impaired. She told the jury:
"[…] the information suggests to me that despite feeling distressed and overwhelmed that M[r]s Vella was capable of understanding events as they transpired. So I didn't feel that there was any impairment and particularly no significant impairment from her level of distress and her emotional state on her ability to understand events, from a cognitive context." (T328:50 - 329:04)
The jury plainly rejected Dr Nielssen's opinion to the contrary, a conclusion that I regard as appropriate.
The offender was assessed on 22 May 2023 by a psychologist, Dr Matthew Taylor. Dr Taylor did not discuss the death of Mr Vella with the offender; his consultation with her was directed to events that followed. The offender told Dr Taylor that she was anxious about being regarded as a murderer, being incarcerated for a lengthy period, and about the loss of contact with family, by whom she feels in part abandoned. The doctor thought her anxiety was proportionate to her circumstances.
The offender referred to the life stresses she has endured, her daughter's death and cancer diagnosis, but also what she asserted was the suffering she endured at Mr Vella's hands (and for which there is no objective evidence).
Dr Taylor made a "diagnosis" of post-traumatic stress disorder, to which I will return.
[6]
Moral Culpability
The Court accepts that the offender was depressed on the day she murdered her husband and that her depression affected her emotional state and emotional reasoning. That emotional disruption is likely to have had some impact on her thought and decision-making processes, to the extent that some reduction in the assessment of the offender's moral culpability for the murder of her husband is warranted. However, I do not think that the reduction should be great or make irrelevant the principle of general deterrence. As Dr Eagle told the jury (T330), a person can be suicidal without being irrational. The decision to commit suicide can be a considered response to a person's situation, and the Court does not accept Dr Nielssen's contrary evidence. The offender had lost her daughter and suffered a terrible illness, the surgery for which had left her mutilated, and which also affected her self-image. She felt that her marriage was not supportive, she was struggling to manage the family and company finances. She was not happy. She made a decision to end her life.
None of that explains why she made a decision to end her husband's life.
Crimes of domestic violence are prevalent, and the courts must play a role in seeking to reduce the incidence of family violence, whether it is the much more common example of men harming women, or the much rarer event of a woman harming a man. The principle of general deterrence is one tool available to the courts to that end. It continues to have a role to play in this case, ameliorated to a modest extent because of the offender's adjustment disorder and depressed mood, and consequentially reduced moral culpability.
[7]
Remorse
There is limited evidence of remorse. Although the offender is entitled to some benefit on sentence for the focused way in which her trial was conducted, with the only issue in dispute being her claimed impairment, that feature says little about remorse. On one view of it, there was no point in the offender contesting the evidence more broadly, since it was undeniable that she had shot her husband and killed him. She said so to Mr Borg and to her daughter, and was in possession of the gun used to kill him, which could be forensically linked to her.
Such remorse as the offender has expressed has concerned the impact of the crime on herself, and on her family, and particularly her daughter. I accept that she regrets the distress her actions have caused to her family. It is less clear that Mrs Vella regrets having killed her husband. As I have already observed, the offender's case at trial was to characterise Mr Vella as a violent and abusive man, a characterisation which the Court does not accept. The evidence does not enable the Court to conclude that the offender truly repents of her crime against her husband.
[8]
Rehabilitation
Despite the absence of any evidence of real remorse, this crime is one committed in particular circumstances that are most unlikely to ever be repeated. The offender's former good character supports a conclusion that her prospects of rehabilitation are positive.
[9]
General and Specific Deterrence
As already observed, general deterrence continues to have some role to play in the determination of sentence, albeit reduced to a modest extent. Others must see that those who commit serious crimes of violence such as this will pay a high price.
I do not regard the principle of specific deterrence as having any real role to play in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
[10]
Current Circumstances
Presently, the offender remains incarcerated, having been remanded since her arrest on 9 August 2021. The report from Justice Health makes clear that Mrs Vella is receiving regular and appropriate medical attention, as well as psychological support from a psychologist. Her health needs are being attended to in custody.
Dr Taylor opined that the offender has both post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder. It is not clear that Dr Taylor has the qualifications and expertise to diagnose a psychiatric disorder and, even if he does, his opinion is undermined by its heavy reliance upon the offender's claims, claims which are exaggerated, and unsupported by credible evidence, and which are not established on balance. I prefer the opinion of Dr Eagle, to the effect that any symptoms had resolved.
The offender has some anxiety, and some level of depressed mood, which is consistent with her present circumstances. She will probably always require medical attention for the possible resurgence of, or conditions associated with, cancer.
[11]
Special Circumstances
The offender argues that her age, ill health, need for psychological treatment, and inexperience of a custodial environment require a finding of special circumstances. The combination of those features can ground such a finding, but I see little need for a parole period beyond that which will flow from the statutory proportion of sentence, having regard to the sort of sentence which must be imposed in this instance. There is no real need to think that the offender will struggle to return to a law-abiding life on release from custody. With the exception of this crime, that has always been her lifestyle. The statutory parole period should be sufficient to ensure a successful return to community life.
[12]
Comparable Cases
The Court was referred by the offender to a number of cases, being:
R v Cadman [2019] NSWSC 634,
R v Fredes [2020] NSWSC 1332,
R v Miller (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1347, and
R v Tran (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 1661
I have also looked at a number of other cases involving shooting deaths [1] , but none are truly comparable or of any real assistance.
[13]
Sentence
It remains to impose sentence.
Having been convicted of the murder of Mark Vella on 9 August 2021 at Murrumbateman in this State the offender is sentenced to a term of 24 years imprisonment, to date from 9 August 2021 and expiring on 8 August 2045. I fix a non-parole period of 18 years imprisonment, expiring on 8 August 2039.
[14]
Endnote
R v Clark [No 3] [2008] NSWSC 795; R v Alkanaan (No.7) [2015] NSWSC 904; R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 43) [2018] NSWSC 886; and R v White [2023] NSWSC 193.
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: 14 July 2023