Joseph Reivers and Applicant v The Queen , , Antonio Carnovale , the Queen , , George Georgeallis and the Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 159


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH REIVERS

S APCR 2008 0709

Applicant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

S APCR 2009 0711

ANTONIO CARNOVALE

Applicant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

S APCR 2008 0715

GEORGE GEORGEALLIS

Applicant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

---

JUDGES:

REDLICH and MANDIE JJA and COGHLAN AJA

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

30 November 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

24 June 2010

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2010] VSCA 159

JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:

R v Joseph Reivers (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Barnett, 23 June 2008); R v Antonio CarnovaleandR v George Georgeallis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Barnett, 25 June 2008)

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Co-offenders convicted of traffick in not less than commercial quantity of cannabis – Impact of delay – Application of R v Verdins – Whether sentences imposed manifestly excessive – Parity between co-offenders – Whether medical evidence ‘fresh evidence’ – Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors

For the Applicant Reivers

For the Applicant Carnovale

For the Applicant Georgeallis

Mr L C Carter

Mr D Grace QC

Mr O P Holdenson QC

Robert Stary & Associates

Patrick W Dwyer

Theo Magazis & Associates

For the Crown

Mr T. Gyorffy Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

  1. I agree with Coghlan AJA.

MANDIE JA:

  1. I also agree with Coghlan AJA.

COGHLAN AJA:

  1. The applicants Joseph Reivers, Antonio Carnovale and George Georgeallis each seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the County Court. 

  1. They were each found guilty of identical counts of trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis between 24 June 2005 and 11 November 2005.  They had been presented separately and were sentenced separately as follows:

Applicant

Date of Sentence

Offence

Sentence

Joseph Reivers 23.06.08 Traffick cannabis 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years
Antonio Carnovale 25.06.08 Traffick cannabis 5 years with a non‑parole period of 2 years 6 months
George Georgeallis 25.06.08 Traffick cannabis 5 years with a non‑parole period of 2 years 6 months
  1. In relation to the applicants Carnovale and Georgeallis, confiscation and pecuniary orders were made.

  1. The case against each of the applicants arose from their involvement with a number of other accused in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis.

Joseph Reivers

  1. The applicant Reivers cultivated a large number of cannabis plants.  The plants were produced by cloning other cannabis plants and growing them utilising a

hydroponic system, set up in a bedroom of his house.  When the applicant’s house was raided by police on 11 November 2005, officers found 673 small plants, 4 large ‘mother’ plants which weighed 7.95kgs (total or each?), 23g of dried cannabis, and a bong.  Additional hydroponic equipment was also recovered. 

  1. The applicant’s practice was to sell the plants to his uncle, Paul Reivers (a co-accused), when they reached a height of 20 to 30 cm, who in turn on-sold them to others.  The plants were sold to the end user for $20 to $30 each and the…

Details
AGLC
Joseph Reivers and Applicant v The QUEEN , , Antonio Carnovale , the QUEEN , , George Georgeallis and the QUEEN [2010] VSCA 159
Case
[2010] VSCA 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Reivers, along with two other applicants, appealed against sentences imposed following their convictions for trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicants argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that there was a lack of parity between the sentences of co-offenders. They also contended that recent medical evidence should be considered as fresh evidence under R v Verdins.

The court needed to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, taking into account the delay in the proceedings, and whether there was a lack of parity between the sentences of co-offenders. Additionally, the court had to assess if the medical evidence could be considered fresh evidence warranting a reduction in sentence.

The High Court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive despite the delay in the proceedings. The court reasoned that the sentences were within the range that could be considered appropriate for the offence, and the delay did not necessitate a reduction. Regarding parity, the court found that there was no significant disparity between the sentences of the co-offenders that warranted intervention. The medical evidence was not deemed fresh evidence under R v Verdins as it did not significantly alter the understanding of the circumstances of the offence or the applicants' roles. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.