Legal Research
Cases
Marocchini v The Queen

Marocchini v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 29 25 February 2015

Reckless Causing Serious Injury

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0249
SERGIO MAROCCHINI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 February 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 29
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Marocchini (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Carmody, 27 October 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – Criminal damage – Reckless conduct placing another person in danger of serious injury – Make threat to kill –Assault police – Related summary offences – Appellant 45 years of age, married with four children, employed and of previous good character – No prior convictions – Whether sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months, with non-parole period of 2 years manifestly excessive – Sentence manifestly excessive in light of appellant’s previously unblemished record – Appeal allowed – Appellant resentenced to imprisonment for 4 months and community correction order of 3 years duration.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Alexander	George Defteros Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr B Kissane SC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

On 23 October 2014, the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two charges of criminal damage, one charge of reckless conduct placing another person in danger of serious injury, one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, one charge of making a threat to kill and one charge of assaulting police. He also pleaded guilty to related summary offences of dangerous driving, resist police, possessing a dangerous article and using a tracking device. On 27 October, the appellant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on
Indictment/

Summary
Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Criminal damage
[s 197 (1) of the
Crimes Act 1958]
10 years

[s 197(1) of the
Crimes Act 1958]
1 year 1 month

2 Criminal damage
[s 197 (1) of the
Crimes Act 1958]
10 years

[s 197(1) of the

Crimes Act 1958]
1 year 2 months

3 Reckless conduct endangering
serious injury
[s 23 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 5 years
[s 23 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 1 year 6 months

4 Recklessly causing serious injury
[s 17 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 15 years
[s 17 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 2 years Base sentence

5 Make threat to kill
[s 20 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 10 years
[s 20 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 1 year 3 months

6 Assault police
[s 31(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958] 5 years
[s 31 of the
Crimes Act 1958] 6 months 3 months

Summary
charge 11 Dangerous driving
[s 64(2) of the
Road Safety Act 1986] Fine of 240 penalty
units or 2 years
[s 64(2) of the
Road Safety Act 1986] 3 months Concurrent

Summary
charge 17 Resist police
[s 52(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966] Fine of…

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 Marocchini v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Marocchini v The Queen [2015] VSCA 0
Case: [2015] VSCA 29
Decision Date: 25 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury, criminal damage, recklessly placing another person in danger of serious injury, making a threat to kill, and assaulting police officers. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia against the respondent, The Queen. The primary issue for the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, was manifestly excessive. The appellant, aged 45, was employed, married with four children, and had no prior convictions or history of criminal activity.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for consistency and proportionality. It considered the appellant's previously unblemished record, his age, employment status, and family responsibilities. The court also weighed the seriousness of the offences, including the recklessness displayed and the impact on the victims. The court found that the sentence imposed did not adequately account for the appellant's personal circumstances and prior good character, leading to the conclusion that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal and resentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 4 months, with a community correction order of 3 years duration. This decision recognised the need for a sentence that balanced the seriousness of the offences with the appellant's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

Orders