Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Zullo

DPP v Zullo

Case [2004] VSCA 153 19 August 2004

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 175 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
RICHARDO ZULLO

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BATT and NETTLE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 August 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 August 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 153	1^ST Revision: 6 September 2004

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Crown appeal - Causing serious injury intentionally - Sentence imposed in County Court of 3½ years and a non-parole period of 2½ years - Manifestly inadequate - Numerous previous convictions - Offence committed on day of release from prison - Re-sentenced to a total of 7 years with 5 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S.E. Pullen	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. and Ms T.K. Hartnett	Dowling McGregor Thomas

WINNEKE, P.:

I invite Nettle, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

NETTLE, J.A.:

The respondent, Richardo Zullo, was born on 5 November 1969 and is now 34 years of age. He is no stranger to the legal system. He was first convicted of a criminal offence in 1987 when he was 17 years of age and since then he has been convicted of more than 60 criminal offences arising out of 20 different court appearances. They include sexual misconduct, dishonesty, driving offences, several weapons offences, disorderly behaviour and three convictions for assault. It is said that he has a low tolerance to alcohol. He becomes intoxicated after consuming a relatively modest amount. It is also said that he is temperamentally disposed to anger. In the result he gets drunk easily and he becomes angry and violent when he is drunk.

On 22 December 2003 at approximately 11.00 a.m. the respondent was released from gaol after serving a sentence of 45 days' imprisonment (another 45 days having been suspended) for offences which included intentionally causing injury, criminal damage, making a threat to kill, and possessing a prohibited weapon without a licence. By 8.30 p.m. that evening he was drunk and, with his sixteen-year-old girlfriend, on a train bound for the Elsternwick station.

James Peter Blaik, whom I shall call the victim, is 37 years of age. He too was a passenger on the train that night. He did not know or have anything to do with the respondent. But like the respondent, he got off the train at Elsternwick.

Unfortunately for the victim, the respondent chose him as a target at which to direct the respondent's anger and violence; and apparently for no better reason than that the respondent did not like the way in which the victim looked at the respondent. Thus, as the victim reached the foyer of the station, the respondent made a vicious and frenzied attack upon him. He punched the victim hard to the face with clenched fists until he fell to the ground. He then knelt down beside the victim and continued to punch him to the face and head…

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 Zullo

Details

AGLC: DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153
Case: [2004] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 19 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Zullo was heard in the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The defendant, Zullo, had been convicted in the County Court of intentionally causing serious injury to a woman. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the County Court, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The County Court had sentenced Zullo to three and a half years in prison, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. The Crown's appeal centred on the severity of the sentence given Zullo's extensive criminal history, which included numerous previous convictions, and the fact that the offence was committed on the day of Zullo's release from prison.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentence could be increased in light of Zullo's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. The Court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for deterrence and the protection of the community, and the importance of proportionality in sentencing. The Court also had to consider the impact of Zullo's criminal history and the fact that the offence was committed on the day of his release from prison.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The Court considered Zullo's extensive criminal history, which included numerous previous convictions, and the fact that the offence was committed on the day of his release from prison. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the County Court did not reflect the seriousness of the offence or the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The Court re-sentenced Zullo to a total of seven years in prison, with a non-parole period of five years. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to take into account the offender's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence.

The Court of Appeal made it clear that the re-sentenced term of imprisonment was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to provide adequate deterrence and protection of the community. The Court also noted that the re-sentenced term of imprisonment would provide an opportunity for Zullo to reflect on his criminal behaviour and to rehabilitate himself. The Court's judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to take into account the offender's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence.

Orders