Achetraritei, Mircea v the Queen - [1984] FCA 80

Re: MIRCEA ACHETRARITEI
And: THE QUEEN
No. ACT G91 of 1982
53 ALR 85
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Blackburn J.
Kelly J.
Neaves J.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - Armed Robbery - Appeal against severity of sentence - Matters to be taken into account - Acute personal stress - Prevalence of crime of armed robbery in the A.C.T. - Degree of participation of appellant in crime - Need to deter - Plea of guilty - Assistance to police by appellant - Whether a recommendation for deportation is a "sentence" from which an appeal lies to the Federal Court.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, ss.4 and 24(1)(b).

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 2:4:1984

ORDER

The Court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

JUDGE1

An indictment presented against the appellant in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 24 October 1983 charged that on 17 June 1981 he, being then in the company of two others and armed with offensive weapons, a rifle and a knife, assaulted Sergio Vidotto and robbed him of $14,040, the property of Transfield Pty. Ltd. (Transfield). He pleaded guilty to the charge, was duly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for five years, a non-parole period of two years being specified. He appeals against the severity of the sentence.

For some three months prior to June 1981 the accused had been employed by Transfield as a rigger. In the first half of that month he was dismissed because, he says, he failed to produce a medical certificate in respect of a day's sick leave he had taken.

Upon his dismissal he went to Melbourne and there met two fellow Romanians who became his accomplices in the crime. They began to question him about Transfield's system of payment of wages. The appellant told them that the next day, a Wednesday, was the day wages were paid in cash, that the pay clerk was on his own in the office after the payroll came until employees knocked off work and came to be paid and that although he did not know how much money there was in the payroll there would be a fair bit since Transfield employed about 50 people. He agreed, when asked, to go to Canberra where it was planned to carry out the robbery.

One of his accomplices drove his own car while the second drove the appellant's car with the appellant as passenger. They left Melbourne at about midnight and arrived in Canberra at about 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. Later that day he drove the other car with the other two as passengers to Transfield's office to show them where the pay would be. He pointed out the office. As he did so he saw the armoured car in which the payroll had been transported.

One of the others took a small calibre rifle from the back seat of the car. The appellant had first seen it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Achetraritei, Mircea v the Queen

Details

AGLC: Achetraritei, Mircea v the Queen [1984] FCA 80 (53 ALR 85)
Case: [1984] FCA 80
Decision Date: 02 APRIL 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mircea Achetraritei, was convicted of armed robbery and appealed the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Achetraritei contended that the trial judge failed to adequately consider personal mitigating factors, the prevalence of armed robbery in the A.C.T., and the degree of his participation in the crime, which he argued warranted a lesser sentence. He also argued that a recommendation for deportation should be considered a "sentence" from which an appeal could be made to the Federal Court.

The court considered whether the trial judge adequately took into account personal mitigating factors, such as Achetraritei's acute personal stress, the prevalence of armed robbery in the A.C.T., and the degree of his participation in the crime. The court examined whether the trial judge erred in not considering these factors or in giving them insufficient weight. Additionally, the court considered the need for deterrence and the appellant's plea of guilty and assistance to police. Finally, the court assessed whether a recommendation for deportation constituted a "sentence" from which an appeal could be made to the Federal Court.

The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the personal mitigating factors, the prevalence of armed robbery in the A.C.T., and the degree of Achetraritei's participation in the crime. The court held that the trial judge's assessment of these matters was not erroneous and that there was no basis to reduce the sentence. The court also determined that a recommendation for deportation was not a "sentence" from which an appeal could be made to the Federal Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

The High Court orders that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.