Mamonitis v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 370

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0458
SANDY MAMONITIS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE JA and BEACH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 370
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Mamonitis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Sexton, 14 December 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Armed robbery – Sentence of imprisonment four years and eight months manifestly excessive having regard to current sentencing practices – Appellant resentenced – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC	Bullards
For the Respondent	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

BEACH AJA:

Introduction

On 8 December 2010, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges: one of armed robbery and one of theft. A plea was heard, and on 14 December 2010, her Honour Judge Sexton sentenced the appellant to four years and eight months’ imprisonment on the charge of armed robbery and six months’ imprisonment on the theft charge. Her Honour ordered three months of the six months of the sentence for theft to be served cumulatively with the sentence for armed robbery, making a total effective sentence of four years and eleven months’ imprisonment, and directed that the appellant serve a non-parole period of three years.

The appellant appeals[1] against the sentence he received. The grounds of appeal are:

(1)The individual sentences, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
(2)The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to place any or any sufficient reliance upon the connections between the commission of the offences, the appellant’s mental illnesses, including his substance abuse disorder and his sexual abuse as a child.
(3)The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to place any sufficient weight upon the fact that imprisonment would be more burdensome for the appellant.
(4)The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to moderate the weight to be placed upon considerations of general deterrence and specific deterrence.
[1]Pursuant to leave granted on 17 June 2011.

Circumstances of the offending

On Sunday 6 June 2010, the appellant and his co-offender, Matthew Green arranged to commit an armed robbery. They met at the Alamein train station, and the appellant brought a large kitchen knife with him.

The co-offender drove them to Burwood, where the co-offender removed number plates from a car parked in the street and attached its number plates to his car (charge 2 – theft).

The appellant and his co-offender drove to a Caltex service station in Burwood. The appellant walked into the service station, produced the kitchen knife he had concealed in his pants, held it on the counter and demanded cash from the service station attendant (charge 1 – armed robbery). The service station attendant gave the appellant all the notes in the till. A sum of $480 was taken. The appellant walked out of the store and ran to…

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 Mamonitis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mamonitis v The Queen [2011] VSCA 370
Case: [2011] VSCA 370
Decision Date: 14 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mamonitis, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years and eight months. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive considering current sentencing practices. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting a reduction to align with contemporary sentencing norms.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and practices in place at the time of the original sentencing. It took into account the nature and circumstances of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court also considered the principles established in relevant case law, which emphasized the need for sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. After a thorough review, the court determined that the original sentence did indeed appear manifestly excessive in light of current sentencing practices. Consequently, the court decided to resentence the appellant, reducing the term of imprisonment to better reflect contemporary standards.

The court did not find any points of principle that would necessitate further discussion or appeal beyond the resentencing. It was satisfied that the resentencing appropriately reflected the current judicial approach to sentencing in similar cases of armed robbery. The court's decision was final, and no further appeal was warranted. The resentencing effectively addressed the issue of excessiveness, and the appellant's new sentence was deemed to be appropriate and proportionate.

Orders