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
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.
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 | 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
- AGLC
- Minotto v The Queen [2010] VSCA 0
- Case
- [2010] VSCA 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.