A Melbourne man who murdered ex-wife in a brutal stabbing ordered to pay family $300K in compensation.
Paulino v Paulino [2020] VSC 642 (1 October 2020)
The family of Melbourne mum brutally murdered in a stabbing rage by her estranged husband have been awarded almost $300,000 in compensation. This case involves the family of the victim who was murdered asking for compensation from the victim, despite delayed filing of an application for compensation.
Facts:
Fernando Paulino was found guilty by jury, on 15 June 2017, of murdering Teresa, his estranged wife. The applicants seek compensation for pain and suffering, as a result of the murder of Teresa Paulino pursuant to section 85B (1) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The applicants are Daniel Paulino and Luke Paulino, the 2 adult children of Teresa and Fernando, and Patrick Mancuso, Teresa’s brother.
On 25 July 2019, approximately 25 months after Fernando was found guilty, an application for an extension of time was filed on behalf of Daniel, Luke and Patrick.
It was submitted that the delay in bringing the application for compensation was, in part, attributable to Fernando’s appeal against conviction, which caused confusion as to the correct time within which the application could first be made. Daniel and Luke gave evidence that they mistakenly believed they had to await the outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal before they could make this application. It was not until early 2019 that they decided to get legal advice about the situation.
Issue:
Should Daniel, Luke and Patrick be entitled for compensation regardless of the delay in filing the application for compensation?
Law:
- Section 85C(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act requires that an application for a compensation order be made within 12 months after the offender is found guilty, or convicted, of an offence.
- However, section 85D (1) of the Sentencing Act confers a discretion on the court to extend the time within which an application for compensation may be made where the court is of the opinion that it is in the interests of justice to do so. This discretion may be exercised where the application for an extension of time is made after the statutory time limit has expired.
Analysis:
A liberal construction should apply to the meaning of “interests of justice” as “victims should not be shut out readily” by the time limit prescribed in section 85C(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act. The purpose of the court’s power to order compensation to victims of crime under the Sentencing Act is to provide victims with quick, efficient and cheap access to redress. Daniel, Luke and Patrick are the victims of this egregious crime. They should not be so readily barred from making an application under a legal system that was designed to provide an accessible compensation regime for victims of criminal offending.
Conclusion: Daniel, Luke and Patrick are entitled to compensation regardless of the delayed filing.
