Luciano v The Queen

Luciano has appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria for multiple criminal offences, including arson, making a threat to kill, recklessly causing injury, and assault. The decision of the Court of Appeal provides clarity on the proper consideration of victim impact statements during sentencing, particularly when such statements contain inadmissible material.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on whether the trial judge had regard to inadmissible material from the victim impact statements and whether this constituted a miscarriage of the sentencing discretion. The appeal also examined whether the judge should have directed the jury to disregard the inadmissible material, as the appellant's counsel did not object on the plea.

The Court of Appeal found that the judge had correctly stated that regard could only be had to the victim impact statements to the extent that they were relevant and admissible. Given that the appellant's counsel did not object to the inadmissible material during the plea, no error was established in the judge's consideration of the victim impact statements. Consequently, the Court held that there was no miscarriage of the sentencing discretion and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal's decision reinforces the importance of objecting to inadmissible material at the trial court level to preserve the right to appeal on such grounds.