Minniti v The Queen

Case [2006] NSWCCA 30

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:      Robert Minniti v Regina [2006]  NSWCCA 30

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/155

HEARING DATE(S):               30 January 2006

DECISION DATE:     20/02/2006

PARTIES:
Robert Minniti
Regina

JUDGMENT OF:       Sully J Hoeben J Latham J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):          04/11/0774

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL:
K.A. Chapple SC - Crown
O.P. Holdenson QC - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
C'wealth DPP - Crown
Gregory J. Goold - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Customs Act 1901 (C'th)
Crimes Act 1914 (C'th)

DECISION:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal against sentence dismissed

JUDGMENT:

- 32 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/155

SULLY J
HOEBEN J
LATHAM J

20 February 2006

ROBERT MINNITI  v  REGINA

Judgment

SULLY J:             

Introduction

  1. Between 23 November 2004 and 2 December 2004 Mr. Minniti, the appellant, stood trial in the District Court at Sydney before his Honour Judge Dodd and a jury. The appellant was so tried upon an indictment which charged him with having attempted, on 2 November 2003 at Sydney, to commit an offence against section 233B(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (C’th) in that he had attempted to possess narcotic goods which had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Customs Act. The goods were described in the charge as having consisted of a quantity of 3.4 – methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”); the particular quantity having been not less than the commercial quantity as defined by the Customs Act. An offence of the kind thus described attracts upon conviction a penalty of, relevantly, imprisonment for life.

  2. On 2 December 2004 the jury found the appellant guilty as charged. On 17 March 2005 Judge Dodd formally convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for 12 years, fixing a non-parole period of 8 years.

  3. The appellant now appeals against conviction and applies for leave to appeal against sentence.

    The Competing Cases at Trial

  4. These are summarised, helpfully and succinctly, and as follows, in the written submissions put in by learned Senior Counsel for the Crown:

    “Brief statement of the Crown case

    4.Briefly, the Crown case was that on 4 October 2003 a large piece of farm equipment was imported into Sydney from Belgium. Secreted within the machinery was a very large quantity (865 bags) of tablets that were discovered by Customs and the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”). On examination the tablets were found to contain 3-4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also know as MDMA or ecstasy. On 9 October 2003 a Dutch national, Antonius Rutten came to Australia to supervise the distribution of the tablets. Later that month 2 Belgian nationals came to Australia, removed the tablets and provided them to Rutten.

    5.Rutten took the tablets to a city apartment he had rented. Both Rutten and the Belgian nationals were arrested on 1 November 2003 by AFP Federal Agents. On the same date, 1 November 2003 Tibor Vermes borrowed a white VW Transporter (Victorian Registration no. OLE 957) from a friend who lived in Victoria.…

Continue reading Minniti v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Minniti v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 30
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minniti v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction and sentence. Minniti contested his conviction and the severity of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the judge failed to consider his previous good character and that the sentence was excessively harsh. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in not giving sufficient weight to Minniti's previous good character and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the appeal against conviction and sentence should be upheld and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The High Court found that the appeal should be dismissed. The court held that once it was accepted that Minniti was rightly convicted, the only appropriate sentence was one of full-time custody, given the serious nature of the offence. The court found that the sentencing judge's findings of fact were properly open to him and that there was no basis to conclude that any of those findings were incorrect. The court also found that the appellant played a significant role in the drug trafficking operation, despite his claims to the contrary. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal against sentence was denied.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and rejected Minniti's grounds for appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SULLY J
I would not uphold Ground 6.The Conviction Appeal : Conclusion In my opinion the appeal should be dismissedThe Application for Leave to Appeal against Sentence Two grounds are advanced in support of this application. They are:“1.The learned sentencing judge failed to accord any, or sufficient, weight to the Applicant’s previous good character.2.The sentence imposed (that is, both the head sentence which was imposed and the non-parole period which was fixed) is, in all the circumstances of the case, manifestly excessive.”It is convenient to deal jointly with both grounds. In my opinion the correct starting point is this: once it is accepted that the appellant was rightly convicted of the crime for which he stood trial, then it must follow that the only sentence that was “of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence”, (see section 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (C’th) ), was a significant sentence of full-time custody. The objective criminality of the enterprise in which the appellant took part is put with complete clarity by the learned sentencing Judge:“The quantity of Ecstasy involved was about twenty kilograms pure in about 200,000 tablets, weighing about forty-seven kilograms gross. The street value is about $14 million. This is an extremely serious offence.” As to the basic objective facts relevant to sentence, his Honour found them, beyond reasonable doubt, as follows:“1.You together with Vermes met Rutten in the vicinity of the Delifrance Café on George Street.2.The meeting was for the sole purpose of obtaining from Rutten a significant quantity of Ecestasy.3.You took possession of the bag containing the substituted Ecstasy tablets.4.You transported the bag containing the Ecstasy substitute to the vehicle parked in Rawson Place.5.You had the keys to that vehicle.6.You took possession of the bag for the purposes of retaining it and ultimately taking it away from the Sydney CBD area.7.When you were approached by police you ran leaving the bag with the Ecstasy substitute, and but for the intervention of police in arresting you, you would otherwise have been able to use the vehicle and leave with a significant quantity of Ecstasy which ultimately would have been distributed throughout the Australian community.” I see no basis upon which this Court can now say that any of those findings was not properly open to his Honour. His Honour was required by the basic principles of sentencing to determine as best he could the actual role of the appellant in the overall enterprise. His Honour dealt with that topic thus:“The Crown further submits that there is a commercial and professional aspect to the nature of the operation which places your criminality and thus the seriousness of the offence in a higher category than if you had acted by yourself.On your behalf it is submitted that there is no foundation for a finding that you were a principal or one of the principals or anything other than a mule. Rutten’s telephone conversations and negotiations leading up to the meeting were all with Vermes. Rutten was not aware of your existence before you met. Rutten’s evidence is that there was no discussion of drugs or money in your presence. You played no part in any negotiations, nor in the handing over of any money by Vermes which was done, apparently deliberately, in your absence and it is submitted on your behalf that this leads to the conclusion that you played a very minor role. It is further submitted on your behalf that you should be dealt with as merely being the conduit by which the suitcase and its contents were transported at the direction of Vermes to the vicinity of the vehicle where you sought further instructions from Vermes. It is submitted that it cannot be established either by direct evidence or inference that your role is anything more than a conduit who took the suitcase from Goulburn Street to the vehicle parked in Rawson Place. Although you were in possession of the keys to the car you did not put the suitcase in the car but put it on the edge of the footpath and there apparently called out to Vermes, it is submitted seeking further instructions or directions. It was also submitted on your behalf that there is no evidence that you gained or stood to gain anything by your actions.In my view to a large extent the facts speak for themselves. There is no need to further categorise your role.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SULLY J

Full text does not contain this section.