DPP v Spiteri - [2006] VSCA 214

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 39 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
ANTHONY ANDREW SPITERI

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A. and COLDREY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 September 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 October 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 214

---

Criminal Law – Crown Appeal – Armed Robbery (3 counts); theft – Deliberate selection of soft targets to obtain money for drugs – Two armed robberies committed while on parole – Prior convictions included five offences for armed robbery – Sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a 3 years 2 months non-parole period manifestly inadequate – Sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years substituted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, QC, DPP with Mr K.G. Gilligan	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan, QC with Mr K. Doyle	Victoria Legal Aid

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

I agree with Coldrey, A.J.A., for the reasons he has stated, that the appeal should be allowed and the respondent resentenced as his Honour proposes.

EAMES, J.A.:

For the reasons his Honour has stated, I agree with Coldrey, A.J.A. that the appeal should be allowed and the respondent be re-sentenced as his Honour proposes.

COLDREY, A.J.A.:

On 16 January 2006 Anthony Spiteri (the respondent) pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to three counts of armed robbery on presentment SO 1687430.1 ("the first presentment"), and one count of theft on presentment SO 1547991 ("the second presentment"). On 24 January 2006 the respondent was sentenced on the first count of armed robbery on the first presentment to 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. He received 2 years' imprisonment on each of the remaining two counts of armed robbery. On the count of theft on the second presentment the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year. It was ordered that 6 months of the sentences on counts 2 and 3 of the first presentment be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the first count on the first presentment. It was further ordered that 3 months of the sentence on the count of theft on the second presentment be served cumulatively upon all other sentences imposed. Accordingly, the total effective sentence was 4 years' imprisonment. A non-parole period of 3 years 2 months was fixed and pre-sentence detention, calculated pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (the Act) was reckoned at 560 days.

The maximum penalty for the offence of armed robbery is 25 years' imprisonment and for the offence of theft the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.

At the time of the commission of these offences the appellant was aged between 36 and 37 years and is currently 39 years old.

The respondent admitted 32 prior convictions from 10 previous appearances in the Magistrates' and County Courts between November 1985 and February 2001 including five counts of armed robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob and one count…

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 Spiteri

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Spiteri [2006] VSCA 214
Case: [2006] VSCA 214
Decision Date: 13 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Spiteri, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentence imposed by a lower court. The defendant, Spiteri, had been convicted on three counts of armed robbery and one count of theft, for which he was sentenced to a total of 4 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 2 months. The prosecution appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate given the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate and whether the appeal court should substitute a harsher sentence. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing for serious and violent crimes, the offender's criminal history, and the impact of the crimes on the victims and the community. The court was also tasked with determining an appropriate non-parole period to ensure public safety and to deter the offender and others from committing similar offences.

The High Court held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate, given the severity of the crimes and the offender's extensive history of armed robbery. The court found that the deliberate targeting of vulnerable individuals to obtain funds for drug use constituted a serious threat to public safety. The appeal court substituted a sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years, reflecting the need for a stronger deterrent and a more substantial punishment for the crimes committed.

In conclusion, the High Court substituted the sentence imposed by the lower court with a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a non-parole period of 4 years. This decision underscores the importance of appropriate sentencing for serious and violent crimes, particularly where the offender has a history of similar offences and poses a significant risk to public safety.

Orders