Mantovani v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 225

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0976

VINCENT MANTOVANI
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, BONGIORNO JA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	6 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 September 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 225
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Mantovani (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hampel, 10 & 15 December 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Blackmail, criminal damage, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – Total effective sentence 7y, non-parole period 4y – Whether manifestly excessive – Cognitive impairment – Whether moral culpability reduced – Whether publicity caused applicant hardship in prison – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P F Tehan SC	Tait Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
BONGIORNO JA
KYROU AJA:

Introduction and summary

The applicant pleaded guilty to 12 offences. Following a plea in mitigation, he was sentenced as follows:

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

Presentment No C0806108.2 – Complainant Orsida

1 July 2004 Blackmail 15y 3y Base

3 26/10/2004 Intentional damage to property 10y 2y 6m

6 31/8/2005 Intentional damage to property 10y 2y 6m

Presentment No C0806108.1 – Complainants Howes and Selman

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Jan/Feb 2006 Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice 25y 1y 6m

3 3/7/2006 Perjury 15y 6m None

Presentment No. C0806108.3 – Complainant Corso

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

3 November 2004 Blackmail 15y 2y 1y

Presentment No. C0806108.5B – Complainant Paskins

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 19/1/2006 Blackmail 15y 2y 1y

Presentment No. U01871248 – Drugs offences

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 19/1/2006 to 31/8/2006 Traffick in a drug of dependence (Steroids)
15y
18m 6m

2 3/8/2006 Possession of a drug of dependence (Steroids) 5y and/or 400 penalty units 6m None

3 3/8/2006 Possession of a drug of dependence (Diazepam)
1y and/or 30 penalty units
$500 fine N/A

Presentment No. U01871248.1 – Firearms offences

Count Date Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 3/8/2006 Prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm 15y and/or 1800 penalty units $1,000 fine N/A

2 3/8/2006 Prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm 15y and/or 1800 penalty units $1,000 fine N/A

TES: 7y and $2,500

NPP: 4y

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against all the individual custodial sentences, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period.

For the reasons that follow, we have concluded that leave to appeal should be refused.

Overview of offending

(a) Orsida presentment

In mid-2004, the applicant learned that Rocco (Rocky) Orsida (‘Orsida’), who operated a number of orchards in partnership with his brother, Roy, in the Cobram region, had made sexual advances towards Luisa Racioppo (‘Racioppo’). Racioppo was employed by the Orsidas in early 2004 for about six months and had been in a relationship with the applicant.

The applicant was enraged about the advances towards Racioppo and told an…

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 Mantovani v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mantovani v The Queen [2012] VSCA 225
Case: [2012] VSCA 225
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mantovani v The Queen involves an appellant who was found guilty of blackmail, criminal damage, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The appellant was sentenced to a total effective term of seven years, with a non-parole period of four years. The primary focus of the appeal was the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's cognitive impairment, which the appellant argued reduced their moral culpability. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the publicity surrounding the case had caused significant hardship in prison, impacting their mental health and well-being.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The court had to assess the extent to which the appellant's cognitive impairment affected their culpability and whether this warranted a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the alleged publicity-induced hardship in prison constituted an additional mitigating factor that should be considered in the sentencing process.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The cognitive impairment was considered in the sentencing process, but the court determined that it did not sufficiently reduce the appellant's moral culpability to warrant a lesser sentence. The court also found that the publicity and its effects on the appellant's mental health did not constitute a significant mitigating factor. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The appellant's sentence was upheld, and the court's decision stands that the punishment meted out was appropriate given the circumstances.

Orders