DPP (Vic) v Raddino - [2002] VSCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 27 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
MARIA RADDINO

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., CHARLES and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 May 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 66

---

Criminal Law - Crown appeal against sentence - Theft of moneys from bank in breach of trust - Gambling - Whether gambling addiction a mitigating factor - Sentence of two years' imprisonment with 18 months' suspension not manifestly inadequate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S.E. Pullen	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr W. E. Stuart	Victoria Legal Aid

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I shall ask my brother Chernov to give the first judgment in this matter.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 24 January 2002, the respondent, who is now aged 41, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to one count of theft. The maximum penalty for the crime is 10 years' imprisonment. After hearing a plea in mitigation made on her behalf, the learned sentencing judge sentenced her to two years' imprisonment and ordered that 18 months of that term be suspended for a period of two years. The result was the imposition of an effective term of six months' imprisonment. The respondent had no prior convictions.

The Director of Public Prosecutions now appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate. In the notice of appeal four particulars are provided in support of this ground. I will refer to them later, but for the present it need only be mentioned that Ms Pullen, who appeared for the appellant, confirmed that her case was that the head sentence was patently inadequate and that in those circumstances the period of suspension was unduly long.

Before considering counsel's submissions on the adequacy of the sentence, I will briefly outline the circumstances which led to the offending. The respondent was born in Italy and entered Australia with her parents when she was three years of age. For the past 17 years she has resided with her parents and siblings (until they left home) in the family home at Glenroy. Subsequent to her father's sudden death in December 2000, she became the principal carer for her 62-year-old insulin dependent, diabetic mother who also suffers other major health problems.

At school, the respondent was an above average student who gained entrance at a tertiary institution to undertake an accounting and economics degree but she did not complete her studies. Her working life commenced when she joined the Commonwealth Bank in 1981. She was progressively promoted within the bank and at the time of her apprehension had been working as an Assistant Manager at its Moonee Ponds branch for almost 12 months. The respondent was a diligent worker who, typically, worked a 12-hour day, usually arriving at work before others. She rarely took any leave due to illness and worked during most of the rostered days off. Because of the…

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 (Vic) v Raddino

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Raddino [2002] VSCA 66
Case: [2002] VSCA 66
Decision Date: 8 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP (Vic) v Raddino, the respondent was convicted of multiple charges of theft, specifically for stealing money from his employer's bank accounts. The Victorian Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on the respondent, which was two years' imprisonment with 18 months' suspension. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the mitigating circumstances presented by the defence.

The court examined whether the respondent's gambling addiction could be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing. It was argued that the addiction had a significant impact on the respondent's ability to control his actions and contributed to the commission of the offences. The court assessed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case. The court held that while the addiction was a relevant mitigating factor, it did not render the sentence manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and provided an appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and legal principles. It was determined that the sentence of two years' imprisonment with 18 months' suspension was not manifestly inadequate, taking into account all relevant factors. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond confirming the original sentence.

Orders