Ciantar v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 313


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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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
3OPU

N/A

N/A

1m imp

Total effective sentence

Non-parole period

ROSE
TES: 4y 6m imp
NPP: 3y
CIANTAR
TES: 4y 7m imp
NPP: 3y 1m
  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Ciantar v The Queen [2010] VSCA 313
Case
[2010] VSCA 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ciantar versus The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences including burglary, conduct endangering persons, and possession of explosives without lawful object. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine the correctness of the sentence handed down by the lower court. The central issues for the court were whether the trial judge had appropriately discounted the sentence for the appellant's guilty plea and whether the trial judge erred in not considering the period of detention prior to sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the judge had failed to adequately account for his guilty plea and the time spent in pre-sentence detention.

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.