Legal Research
Cases
Latina v The Queen

Latina v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 102 15 May 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0174
ROSARIO LATINA	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 102
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Latina (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Stuart, 24 June 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Confession – Disclosure of new information about a known trafficking offence which elevated it to an offence of more serious gravity – Giretti charge – Application of the principle in Ellis [1986] 6 NSWLR 603 and Doran [2005] VSCA 271 – Failure to provide an appropriate demonstrable discount – Guilty plea – Rehabilitation – Appeal allowed – Total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment reduced to five years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years and nine months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R F Edney	Turnbull Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Crown	Ms S M Borg	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

KYROU JA:

The appellant, now aged 46, pleaded guilty to a number of drug and related offences and was sentenced as follows:

Charges on Indictment Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking in a drug of dependence [Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981 s 71AC] 15 years’ imprisonment [Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981 s 71AC] 4 years
6 months’ imprisonment Base

2 Possession of substance, material, documents or equipment for manufacturing drug of dependence [Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981 s 71A] 10 years’ imprisonment [Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act1981 (Vic) s 71A] 18 months’ imprisonment 6 months

3 Handling stolen goods [Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1)] 15 years’ imprisonment [Crimes Act 1958 s 88(2)] 2 years
6 months’ imprisonment 12 months

4 Possession of substance/equipment for purpose of manufacturing a drug of dependence 10 years’ imprisonment 18 months’ imprisonment -

5 Possess, carry or use an unregistered category B longarm [Firearms Act 1996 s 6A] 2 years’ imprisonment [Firearms Act 1996 s 6A] 6 months’ imprisonment 2 months

6 Possess, carry or use an unregistered category B longarm 2 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment -

7 Possess, carry or use an unregistered category B longarm 2 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment -

Summary Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

4 Possess cartridge ammunition without licence or permit [Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1)] 40 penalty units [Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1)] $1000 (conviction recorded) -

5 Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime [Crimes Act 1958 s 195] 2 years’ imprisonment [Crimes Act 1958 s 195] 8 months’ imprisonment
(aggregate) 3 months
(aggregate)

6 Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime 2 years’ imprisonment

7 Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime 2 years’ imprisonment

8 Deal with property suspected of being proceeds…

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 Latina v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Latina v The Queen [2015] VSCA 102
Case: [2015] VSCA 102
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Latina v The Queen involved the appellant, who had confessed to a drug trafficking offence. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, arguing that the trial judge had failed to appropriately discount the sentence due to the appellant’s guilty plea and the mitigating factors of rehabilitation. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of Victoria, which comprised of Redlich JA, Weinberg and Ashley JJA.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to provide an appropriate demonstrable discount to the sentence for the appellant's guilty plea and early admission of guilt, and whether the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the principles established in Ellis and Doran, which emphasise the importance of providing a discount for a guilty plea and the need to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The court held that the trial judge had failed to provide an appropriate demonstrable discount for the appellant's guilty plea and early admission of guilt. The court found that the appellant's guilty plea and early admission of guilt were significant factors that should have been taken into account when determining the sentence. The court also found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, which was another factor that should have been considered when determining the sentence. The court held that the appropriate sentence for the appellant was five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. The court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's appeal against sentence be allowed, and that the total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment be reduced to five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the appellant's guilty plea and prospects of rehabilitation, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also highlighted the need for trial judges to provide an appropriate demonstrable discount for a guilty plea and early admission of guilt, in accordance with the principles established in Ellis and Doran.

Orders