Londrigan v The Queen - [2010] VSCA 81

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

PETER FRANCIS LONDRIGAN	No 567 of 2009
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES	REDLICH and HARPER JJA and HABERSBERGER AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	8 February 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	19 April 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 81
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Londrigan (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howie, 7 November 2008)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking in a drug of dependence and dishonestly handling stolen goods – Pleas of guilty – Total effective sentence of four years with a non-parole period of two years and eight months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Co-offenders – Parity – Whether sentence adequately reflected the applicant’s role in comparison with his co-offenders – Whether sufficient weight given to applicant’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 considered – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G M Hughan	Casey Criminal Law
For the Crown	Mr G J Silbert SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

I agree for the reasons given by Harper JA that leave to appeal should be refused.

HARPER JA:

On 19 June 2007, Peter Francis Londrigan (‘the applicant’) was charged with trafficking between 20 September 2005 and 1 March 2006 in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and dishonestly handling stolen goods (a Holden Astra motor vehicle) on 8 January 2006. After a committal proceeding in which he reserved his plea, the applicant was on 22 August 2008 arraigned before her Honour Judge Hannan in the County Court at Melbourne. He pleaded guilty to each charge.

The plea was heard by his Honour Judge Howie on Wednesday 29 October 2008. It was then adjourned part heard to the following Friday, 31 October. Sentence was pronounced on 7 November. The applicant was sentenced on the count of trafficking to a term of three years and six months’ imprisonment. On the charge of handling stolen goods, he was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months. His Honour ordered that six months of the latter sentence be served cumulatively with that of trafficking. The total effective sentence was therefore imprisonment for a term of four years. His Honour fixed two years and eight months as the period which the applicant must serve before becoming eligible for parole, and indicated that, in the absence of the plea of guilty, he would have imposed a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months.

The applicant now wishes to appeal against sentence. But his outline of submissions was filed a day late. As a result, his application was taken to be dismissed pursuant to r 2.09(1). He now seeks its reinstatement, an application to which the respondent consents. This Court ordered accordingly that the application for leave to appeal be reinstated.

The applicant relies upon three grounds. The first of these is that each of the individual sentences imposed on counts 1 and…

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 Londrigan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Londrigan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 81
Case: [2010] VSCA 81
Decision Date: 19 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Londrigan was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence and dishonestly handling stolen goods. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and failed to adequately reflect his role in comparison to his co-offenders. He also argued that insufficient weight was given to his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the relevant legal principles and the particular circumstances of the case.

The central legal issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether it adequately reflected the applicant's role compared to his co-offenders, and whether sufficient weight was given to the applicant's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to the totality of the sentence, the role of the applicant, and the relevance of mitigating factors such as the applicant's disorder.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and adequately reflected the applicant's role in the offending. The court found that the County Court had appropriately considered the applicant's role and the impact of his disorder, and that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending. The court further found that the sentence appropriately reflected the need for general and specific deterrence, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the County Court. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, taking into account the totality of the offending, the role of the applicant, and the mitigating factors. The court found that the County Court had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders