DPP v Pennisi - [2009] VSCA 322

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 945 of 2008

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v
RALPH MATTHEW PENNISI

---

JUDGES	NEAVE and BONGIORNO JJA, BYRNE AJA
WHERE HELD	WARRNAMBOOL
DATE OF HEARING	1 December 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	1 December 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2009] VSCA 322
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2008] VSC 498

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Director’s appeal — Manslaughter – Sentence within range — Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr GJC Silbert SC with Mr BL Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr LWG Hartnett with Mr PJ Doyle

NEAVE JA:

The order of the Court in this matter is that the appeal is dismissed, and I will ask Justice Bongiorno to read the judgment of the Court.

BONGIORNO JA:

On 25 February 2007, Ralph Matthew Pennisi killed his then de facto wife, Michelle Louise Bishop, by strangling her at the home they shared in Thornbury with six of Ms Bishop’s children. Pennisi was the father of two of those children. Both Pennisi and Ms Bishop were heroin users, she probably to a greater degree than he was. Having killed her, Pennisi disposed of Ms Bishop’s body by wrapping it in plastic sealed with adhesive tape and placing it in a storm water drain about two days after her death. In the meantime, and subsequently, he lied about the death to his family and friends, accusing Ms Bishop of having voluntarily left him and her children, or perhaps having met with foul play as a result of her contact with drug dealers in the course of satisfying her heroin habit.

On the morning of 1 March, Pennisi reported Ms Bishop missing to the police and in the course of doing so made a false statement concerning his belief as to her whereabouts. However, later the same day he was arrested by police and questioned as to his involvement in Ms Bishop’s death. Upon being confronted with an allegation that he had been criminally involved in that death, he immediately admitted that involvement. He then participated in an interview at the Homicide Squad office in the early hours of 2 March 2007.

In that interview, Pennisi told police that, late on the day of her death, he and Ms Bishop had been arguing over money that her mother had given him to give to her. The money, $100.00, was needed by Ms Bishop to buy heroin, but Pennisi had lost it either by gambling on poker machines or actually physically losing it in some other way. Ms Bishop was angry. Pennisi then took her back to an RSL club, where she believed her mother was, and was able to obtain money from her mother’s

boyfriend to replace, at least in part, the lost $100.00. On the way home, Ms Bishop obtained alcohol from an outlet in Fitzroy and heroin from a dealer in Richmond.

A heated argument between Pennisi and Ms Bishop in the car over this…

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 DPP v Pennisi

Details

AGLC: DPP v Pennisi [2009] VSCA 322
Case: [2009] VSCA 322
Decision Date: 1 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Pennisi was heard in the Court of Appeal in Victoria, where the Director sought to appeal the sentence given to the respondent for manslaughter. The respondent was found guilty of manslaughter after stabbing his partner to death during a heated argument. The trial judge sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that the Director deemed too lenient given the circumstances of the offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it should be increased. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, the offender's background, and the sentencing remarks of the trial judge. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crime of manslaughter.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly inadequate. The court considered the sentence to be within the range of sentences that could be imposed for manslaughter, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was not so lenient as to call for interference by the Court of Appeal. The original sentence was therefore upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the original sentence. The court emphasised that the trial judge had carefully considered the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing, and had arrived at a sentence that was not manifestly inadequate. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate.

Orders