Minotto v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 310


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL MINOTTO

S APCR 2009 0628

Appellant

v
THE QUEEN Respondent

---

JUDGES NETTLE and BONGIORNO JJA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 16 November 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT 29 November 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2010] VSCA 310
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM R v Minotto (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wilmoth, 24 April 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Two presentments preferring numerous counts of burglary, theft and attempted theft from ex employer – Appellant sentenced to total effective sentence of five years and two months’ imprisonment – Whether judge gave sufficient weight to matters of totality, delay and rehabilitation – Error in recording non-parole period in respect of one presentment – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to original term of imprisonment – Recording error corrected.

---

Appearances:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Appellant Mr D A Dann Melasecca Kelly & Zayler
For the Crown Mr S Cooper Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

BONGIORNO JA:

Introduction

  1. On 17 April 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty before the County Court at Melbourne, on Presentment X00887204, to five counts of burglary, seven counts of theft, five counts of attempted theft, one count of attempted burglary and one count of obtaining property by deception;  and, on Presentment X01679758, to one count of burglary, one count of theft, one count of criminal damage and one count of attempted theft.  He also admitted 126 previous convictions from seven court appearances.

  1. Following a plea in mitigation of penalty, on 24 April 2009, he was sentenced as follows:

PRESENTMENT X00887204

Count

Offence

Nature of offending

Max penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Burglary

Entered premises of former employer with intent to steal

10 years imp

2 years imp

3 months

2

Theft

Stole motor cycle from the premises worth $22,000

10 years imp

3 years imp

-

3

Theft

Stole tools from the premises worth
$15,000

10 years imp

2 years imp

-

4

Burglary

Rolled-up count entered 3 different areas of premises

10 years imp

3 years imp

3 months

5

Theft

Stole metal valued at $31,000, later sold for $13,000

10 years imp

3 years imp

-

6

Theft

Stole motor vehicle worth $80,000 from premises

10 years imp

3 years imp

-

7

Attempted theft

Tried to break into a truck at premises causing damage

5 years imp

1 year imp

3 months

8

Attempted theft

Tried to break into a truck at premises causing damage

5 years imp

1 year imp

-

9

Attempted theft

Tried to break into a truck at premises causing damage

5 years imp

1 year imp

-

10

Attempted theft

Tried to break into a truck at premises causing damage

5 years imp

1 year imp

-

11

Attempted theft

Tried to break into a truck at premises causing damage

5 years imp

1 year imp

-

12

Theft

Returned to same premises stole 2 welders

10 years imp

1 year imp

1 month

13

Burglary

Entered premises — broke…

Continue reading Minotto v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Minotto v The Queen [2010] VSCA 0
Case
[2010] VSCA 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Minotto v The Queen, the appellant, Minotto, appealed against his sentence, which had been imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Minotto was convicted of multiple counts of burglary, theft, and attempted theft related to his actions against his former employer. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had appropriately considered various factors in sentencing, including the principle of totality, the delay in bringing the charges, and the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to address whether there was an error in the recording of the non-parole period for one of the charges.

The court found that while the trial judge had considered the principle of totality and the delay in prosecuting the charges, they had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court also identified an error in the recording of the non-parole period for one of the charges, which did not align with the sentence imposed. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced to the original term of imprisonment. The court corrected the recording error by specifying the appropriate non-parole period.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the record of orders was amended to correct the non-parole period for one of the charges. The appellant's original term of imprisonment was confirmed, with the addition that the minimum term to be served before being eligible for parole was two years. This decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing and the necessity of accurately recording the terms of imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

We allow the appeal in part. We order that the Record of Orders made in the Criminal Jurisdiction (Case ID: CR-09-00360) be amended by adding thereto that ‘the minimum term to be served before being eligible for parole is 2 year/s imprisonment’. Otherwise we confirm the orders made below.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.