ISIDORO ZOCCHI v THE QUEEN
[2013] ACTCA 12 (11 February 2013)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 7 - 2012
No. SCC 57 of 2010
Judge: Higgins CJ, Penfold J and Dowsett J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 11 February 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 7 – 2012
) No. SCC 57 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:ISIDORO ZOCCHI
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Higgins CJ, Penfold J and Dowsett J
Date: 11 February 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be allowed.
The matter be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentence.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 7 – 2012
) No. SCC 57 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:ISIDORO ZOCCHI
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Penfold J and Dowsett J
Date: 11 February 2013
Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIGGINS CJ:
I agree with the reasons her Honour, Justice Penfold has just given and with the orders her Honour proposes.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 7 – 2012
) No. SCC 57 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:ISIDORO ZOCCHI
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Penfold J and Dowsett J
Date: 11 February 2013
Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PENFOLD J:
On 24 February 2012, Isidoro Zocchi was sentenced to six and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years for an aggravated robbery. He does not challenge this sentence except on the ground that in backdating his sentence, the sentencing judge failed to take account of all relevant pre-sentence custody.
The history of Mr Zocchi’s pre-sentence custody was as follows. He was arrested in respect of the aggravated robbery on 11 December 2009, and bailed on 31 May 2010 to go to drug rehabilitation. At that point he had spent about five and a half months in custody. On 27 July 2010, after he was bailed, his parole on an earlier sentence was cancelled as a result of his failure to report. Mr Zocchi was re-arrested on 13 October 2010 and remained in custody from then until being sentenced on the current sentence.
It seems that Mr Zocchi’s time in custody from 13 October 2010 until 15 September 2012 constituted, among other things, service of the remaining part of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Isidoro Zocchi v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] ACTCA 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in law in imposing the sentence. This involved considering whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the relevant sentencing principles and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise unlawful.
The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had made an error in law. While the specific nature of the error is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the sentence imposed was found to be legally flawed. Consequently, the Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The matter be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentence.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.