SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
| KRISTOPHER CIANTAR | S APCR 2009 0609 |
| Appellant | |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
| - and - | |
| S APCR 2009 0618 | |
| CAMERON ROSE | Appellant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES | NETTLE and BONGIORNO JJA |
| WHERE HELD | MELBOURNE |
| DATE OF HEARING | 16 November 2010 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 29 November 2010 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION | [2010] VSCA 313 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM | R v Ciantar and Rose (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Parsons, 24 April 2009) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Burglary - Conduct endangering persons and possess explosives without lawful object – Rehabilitation prospects and plea of guilty – Whether judge allowed sufficient discount for guilty plea – Totality – Whether judge erred in making no allowance for ‘pre sentence’ detention – Appeal allowed in part – R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88 applied.
---
Appearances: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Appellant Rose | Mr D A Dann | Haines & Polites |
| For the Appellant Ciantar | Mr L C Carter | Melinda Walker |
| For the Respondent | Mr C J Ryan SC | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
NETTLE JA:
BONGIORNO JA:
These are appeals against sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants on 24 April 2009 on pleading guilty to one count of conduct endangering persons, two counts of burglary and one count of possessing explosives without lawful object and, in the case of the appellant Ciantar, to a further count of possession of a drug of dependence.
The maximum penalty applicable to each offence, and the individual sentences and the orders for cumulation made in each case, were as follows:
ROSE
CIANTAR
CT.
DESCRIPTION
MAX
SENTENCE
CMLTN
SENTENCE
CMLTN
1
Conduct endangering persons
5y imp
1½y imp
1y
1½y imp
1y
2
Burglary
10y imp
2½y imp
BASE
2½y imp
BASE
3
Burglary
l0y imp
2½y imp
6m
2½y imp
6m
4
Possess explosives without lawful object
5y imp
2y imp
6m
2y imp
6m
5
Possess drug of dependence
1y imp or
3OPUN/A
N/A
1m imp
Total effective sentence
Non-parole period
ROSE
TES: 4y 6m imp
NPP: 3yCIANTAR
TES: 4y 7m imp
NPP: 3y 1m
The circumstances of the offending are described in the judge’s sentencing remarks. On Wednesday 15 October 2008, police began surveillance of both appellants which they continued on 16 and 17 October 2008. On 16 October 2008, at approximately 11.50 pm Rose was observed driving a silver Mitsubishi with Ciantar in the passenger seat in Lexton Street, Coolaroo industrial estate. Police watched the appellants park the vehicle and walk into the yard of MFJ Constructions, which contained two locked explosive magazines, before moving off again at about 12.00 am.
At 1.42 am on Friday 17 October 2008, they were seen parked on Fairways Boulevard, Craigieburn. Police observed Rose open the boot and Ciantar looking off the bridge into the lake before returning to the vehicle and driving away.
At around midday, police attended the lake and retrieved a red wooden box marked ‘explosives’ from the water. It contained a grey Nike…
Continue reading Ciantar v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ciantar v The Queen [2010] VSCA 313
- Case
- [2010] VSCA 313
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in R v Renzella, focusing on the importance of ensuring a sentence reflects the totality of the offender's conduct. It was noted that the judge had taken into account the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were deemed poor, as well as the dangerous nature of his conduct. However, the court found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's early guilty plea, which is typically a significant mitigating factor. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge should have considered the period of pre-sentence detention in the overall sentencing equation. As a result, the appeal was allowed in part, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
The court's decision emphasised the need for judges to carefully balance all relevant factors, including the totality principle, when determining an appropriate sentence. By highlighting the importance of recognising the appellant's guilty plea and pre-sentence detention, the court underscored the necessity for comprehensive and fair sentencing processes. This ruling serves as a reminder to lower courts of the need to thoroughly consider all mitigating factors and to provide adequate justification for their sentencing decisions. The case ultimately resulted in a partial allowance of the appeal, necessitating a re-evaluation of the sentence by the lower court to ensure it appropriately reflects all relevant considerations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.