Australia, June 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement May 16:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. A standard non-parole period of 20 years for the offence of murder has been specified by the legislature (Sentencing Act, s 54A).

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196d2e345cd3865db017a13c)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.