Collins v Caccavo - [2015] TASSC 53

[2015] TASSC 53

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Collins v Caccavo [2015] TASSC 53

PARTIES:  COLLINS, Roger (Constable)
  v
  CACCAVO, Rocco

FILE NO:  224/2015
DELIVERED ON:  17 November 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16 November 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:   S Nicholson
             Respondent:   AG Melick SC and R Broomhall
Solicitors:
             Applicant:   Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 53
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 53/2015
File No 225/2015

CONSTABLE ROGER COLLINS v ROCCO CACCAVO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ESTCOURT J

17 November 2015

The respondent was charged and found guilty of one count of receiving stolen property, contrary to s 258 of the Criminal Code 1924.
The particulars of the charge were that on or about 8 April 2011 he knowingly received stolen property being a pallet of smoked salmon sides to an approximate value of $8,080.
He was sentenced by Magistrate S Cooper on 20 March 2015.
The learned magistrate dealt with him under s 7(f) of the Sentencing Act 1997 (the Act), adjourning the proceedings against him for five years on his giving an undertaking to be of good behaviour during that time, and not to commit any offence or crime involving an element of dishonesty.
He was sentenced on the basis that the magistrate considered the value of the property was $7,663.40. I do not find it necessary to consider the respondent's contention that the value was much less than that.
On passing sentence the magistrate commented as follows:
"Receiving is a serious matter, it's frequently said that without receivers there are no thieves although that's not quite right because thieves will of course steal for their own ends, but the act of receiving doubtless encourages stealing.
The property involved was valuable, and in this case no discount is available for a plea of guilty. Mr Caccavo is 48 years of age and you were 44 at the time you offended [sic]. You come before the Court for sentence today without blemish of any type and specifically without prior conviction for any offending of this type or anything remotely like it. You are a successful businessman and a committed family man. You're a respected and productive member of the community and the many references that were tendered to me speak to your character and your ongoing community service.
The profit you in fact made was modest, in the order of two hundred dollars. Your offending and the following publicity I was told and I accept has had a significant impact on your reputation and a demonstrated impact upon your financial position. I have been told and I accept that at least one major supplier refuses to have any further dealings with you. You of course had a co-offender, ordinarily considerations of parity are very important…

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 Collins v Caccavo

Details

AGLC: Collins v Caccavo [2015] TASSC 53
Case: [2015] TASSC 53
Decision Date: 17 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collins v Caccavo was a case heard by the court of appeal where the defendant appealed against his sentence. The defendant was convicted of serious criminal offences and the primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh given the mitigating factors present in his case. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in sentencing the defendant. This required a review of the sentencing principles applicable to the case, the weight given to various aggravating and mitigating factors, and whether the overall sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes. The court also had to consider whether there was any error in the trial judge's assessment of the facts that could have influenced the sentence.

After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's reasons, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case, reaffirming the importance of proportionality and judicial discretion in criminal sentencing.

Orders