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:
I agree with Coghlan AJA.
MANDIE JA:
I also agree with Coghlan AJA.
COGHLAN AJA:
The applicants Joseph Reivers, Antonio Carnovale and George Georgeallis each seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the County Court.
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
In relation to the applicants Carnovale and Georgeallis, confiscation and pecuniary orders were made.
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
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.
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…
- 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
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.