Centofanti v Tasmania - [2011] TASCCA 10

[2011] TASCCA 10

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Centofanti v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 10

PARTIES:  CENTOFANTI, Jamie
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

FILE NO/S:  S726/2010
DELIVERED ON:  10 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  25 May 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate - Trafficking in a controlled substance – Importation of cocaine with the intention of selling part – Rehabilitation from addiction to drug after charged – Prior conviction – Whether immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive.

Australian Digest Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  A J Hall
           Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Grant Tucker
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2011] TASCCA 10
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 2011/10
File No S726/2010

JAMIE CENTOFANTI v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
TENNENT J

PORTER J
WOOD J
10 August 2011

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 10/2011
File No S726/2010

JAMIE CENTOFANTI v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
10 August 2011

The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in a controlled substance following a plea of not guilty to that crime before a jury. The controlled substance was cocaine.

The appellant was intercepted at Launceston Airport. He was found to be carrying 17.7 grams of cocaine in 23 small plastic bags. The estimated street value of the cocaine was $6,000. The appellant was interviewed by police and told them he was a long-term user of cocaine and that the cocaine found on him was for his personal use. While the jury may have accepted that the appellant was a long-term user and that some of the cocaine was for personal use, it clearly did not accept that all of it was for personal use. The appellant was a lighting designer and director. When intercepted, he was entering Tasmania for the purpose of working at a music festival. He was to be in the State for only a short period of time.

The cocaine found on the appellant at the airport was confiscated by police and of course no part of it was ever actually sold by him.

At the time of sentence, Blow J noted that the appellant was 36 years old and had a partner and a young child. He was a lighting designer and director and highly regarded in his industry, both for his competence and as an educator and mentor. His Honour was provided with a number of excellent character references. He also noted that the appellant had worked on a pro bono basis for charities. He noted that the appellant had a prior drug-related conviction in 1998, imposed in New South Wales. The appellant was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug and sentenced to 18 months of periodic detention. On the same date, he was convicted of driving under the influence of…

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 Centofanti v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Centofanti v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 10
Case: [2011] TASCCA 10
Decision Date: 10 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Centofanti v Tasmania concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Centofanti, to the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The applicant had been convicted of importing a controlled substance, specifically cocaine, with the intention of selling a portion of it. The central dispute revolved around whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, given the applicant's subsequent rehabilitation from drug addiction following his charge.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment was demonstrably too severe, taking into account the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation and his prior conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's determination. Tennent, Porter and Wood JJ reasoned that the objective seriousness of importing a commercial quantity of cocaine, even with the intention to sell only part of it, was significant. While acknowledging the applicant's rehabilitation efforts and the impact of addiction, the Court held that these factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The prior conviction was also considered a relevant factor in assessing the appropriate sentence.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal 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.