Domenic Quadara v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0085

DOMENIC QUADARA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)

---

JUDGES:	TATE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined ‘on the papers’
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 September 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 260
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VCC 366 (Judge Pullen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Multiple charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence – Possess a drug of dependence – Possess tablet press – Possess traffickable quantity of unregistered firearms – Handling stolen goods – Total effective sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of four years – Cumulation between two indictments – Offending on second indictment occurred while on bail for offences on first indictment – Whether reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearance	Slink & Keating Solicitors
For the Respondent	No appearance	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TATE JA:

The applicant, Domenic Quadara (‘Quadara’) pleaded guilty in the County Court to charges that arose from events on 29 April 2015 and events on 29 September 2016. The April 2015 events gave rise to two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence. These charges were brought by Indictment F11493545 (‘the first indictment’). In addition, the April 2015 events gave rise to three summary charges, to which Quadara also pleaded guilty, and to which he consented being transferred to the County Court. The September 2016 events gave rise to one charge of possession of a traffickable quantity of unregistered firearms, three charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, one charge of possession of a table press and two charges of handling stolen goods. These charges were brought by Indictment G12693769 (‘the second indictment’). In addition, the September 2016 events gave rise to two further summary charges, to which Quadara also pleaded guilty, and to which he consented being transferred to the County Court.

After a plea hearing on 6 March 2017 he was sentenced in respect of all charges on 4 April 2017. [1] With respect to the April 2015 offences, he was sentenced as follows:
[1]DPP v Quadara [2017] VCC 366 (‘Reasons’).

Offence Maximum penalty Sentence Cumulation

Charge 1 on the first indictment Trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine)
[Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘DPCS Act’) s 71AC] 15 years’ imprisonment 2 years’ imprisonment Base

Charge 2 Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cocaine) 15 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment 1 month

Charge 3 Possess a drug of dependence (cannabis) [DPCS Act s 73] 5 penalty units $200 -

Summary charge 6 Possess prohibited weapon [Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 5AA] 1200 penalty…

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 Domenic Quadara v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Domenic Quadara v The Queen [2017] VSCA 260
Case: [2017] VSCA 260
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Domenic Quadara, appealed against his sentence in the High Court of Australia, having been convicted on multiple charges related to drug trafficking, possession of a drug of dependence, possession of a tablet press, possession of an unregistered firearm, and handling stolen goods. The total effective sentence imposed was six years and four months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there were grounds for leave to appeal. Specifically, the court had to consider whether it was reasonably arguable that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the cumulative nature of the offences across two separate indictments and the fact that the offences on the second indictment were committed while the applicant was on bail for the offences on the first indictment.

The court evaluated the arguments presented by the applicant, considering the totality of the offending and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It was noted that the applicant had a history of serious offending, which included the use of violence and intimidation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The cumulative nature of the offending and the fact that the second set of offences occurred while the applicant was on bail for the first set of offences were taken into account in the sentencing process. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offending, and it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for special leave to appeal. The reasoning of the court was that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and there were no grounds to argue otherwise. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the cumulative nature of the offending across two separate indictments. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders