Interlandi v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0133

BRONSON INTERLANDI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

----

JUDGES:	PRIEST and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 April 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 April 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 55
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Interlandi [2021] VCC 666 (Judge Wilmoth)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Obtaining financial advantage by deception and using false document – Imprisonment for one year – Three months of sentence cumulative on sentences for drug and dishonesty charges – Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with 3 years non-parole – Parity – Co-offender sentenced to fine without conviction – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced to $5,000 fine with conviction – Resulting total effective sentence 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with 2 years and 9 months non-parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P J Smallwood	Paul Vale Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Mr C Boyce QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
McLEISH JA:

The applicant faced charges in the County Court spread across three indictments (and certain related summary offences) as follows:

· Indictment No. J10558426.1 (‘the first indictment’): Obtaining a financial advantage by deception[1] (‘the vending machine charge’);

· Indictment No. L11394624.1 (‘the second indictment’): Trafficking in a drug of dependence, cocaine (charge 1); possessing a drug of dependence, Xanax (charge 2); and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime (charge 3); and related summary offences of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and contravening a conduct condition of bail (‘the drug charges’); and

· Indictment No. L12387376 (‘the third indictment’): Obtaining a financial advantage by deception[2] (charge 1) and using a false document[3] (charge 2) (‘the accounting charges’).

[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 82(1). The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 83A(2). The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

On 17 August 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty to the vending machine charge on the first indictment; and on 18 November 2020 he pleaded guilty to the accounting charges on the third indictment. He pleaded guilty to the drug charges on the second indictment on 16 February 2021.

Following a plea over several days, on 21 May 2021 the judge sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, in accordance with the table set out below.[4]
[4]At [8].

The present application for leave to appeal relates only to the sentence imposed on the vending machine charge on the first indictment and to the sentence imposed on the accounting charges on the third indictment.

There are two proposed grounds of appeal. The first of those grounds relates to the sentence on the accounting charges on the third indictment, and the second proposed ground concerns the sentence on the vending machine charge on the first indictment. They are formulated as follows:

1 There was an…

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 Interlandi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Interlandi v The Queen [2022] VSCA 55
Case: [2022] VSCA 55
Decision Date: 5 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Interlandi v The Queen, the appellant, Mr. Interlandi, appealed against his sentence for obtaining financial advantage by deception and using a false document. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Interlandi had been sentenced to one year in prison, with three months of this sentence being cumulative on sentences he was already serving for drug and dishonesty charges. This resulted in an effective sentence of six years' imprisonment, with three years non-parole.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence was appropriate and whether there was a need to ensure parity with co-offenders who had received lesser sentences. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the cumulative sentence for the appellant's various charges was proportionate and whether it achieved the purposes of criminal sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to address the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and a co-offender who had been sentenced to a fine without conviction.

The High Court found that the original sentence did not adequately consider the principle of parity, especially in light of the co-offender's significantly lighter penalty. The court noted that the cumulative nature of the sentences for the various charges had resulted in a harsh effective sentence, which did not align with the sentencing principles of the criminal justice system. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Mr. Interlandi was resentenced to a $5,000 fine with conviction, resulting in a total effective sentence of 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with 2 years and 9 months non-parole. This resentence better reflected the principles of criminal justice, including proportionality and parity.

Orders