Mune v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0386

GUSTAVO MUNE	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	HARPER and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 August 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 231
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Mune (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hampel, 22 October 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Intentionally causing injury, trafficking in a drug of dependence and possession of cannabis - Plea of guilty - Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment and non-parole period of three years - Whether lack of remorse an aggravating feature - Whether violence was calculated - Whether principles enunciated in R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 applicable - Manifest excess - Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C T Carr	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HARPER JA:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), one charge of possession of cannabis, and one charge of intentionally causing injury.  On 22 October 2010 he received a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment.  The sentencing judge ordered that he serve three years before becoming eligible for parole.  Two presentments and one indictment were involved, as shown in the table below.

Count/ Charge on Presentment/ Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1 (Presentment X02688353)	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15y	2y	Base
2 (Presentment X02688353)	Possession of cannabis	5PU	Fine - $100
1 (Presentment X02645171)	Intentionally causing injury	10y	2y	1y 6m
1  (Indictment Y03323776)	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	15y	2y 6m	1y 6m
Total Effective Sentence:		5y
Non-Parole Period:		3y
6AAA Statement:		TES 7y NPP 5y

1. On 26 June 2008 the appellant violently attacked a friend who was visiting the appellant’s home.  The friend immediately reported the incident to the police, and was taken to hospital.

1. The appellant not only admitted the attack, but gave a bizarre description of it.  He said that, because he was administering a just punishment, he did nothing wrong.  He nevertheless pleaded guilty to intentionally causing injury.

1. As shown in the table above, the judge sentenced the appellant to two years’ imprisonment on this charge.  The maximum penalty was ten years’ imprisonment.

1. On 16 September 2008, the police executed a search warrant on the appellant’s home.  On this occasion, they were investigating not violence but drugs.  They found

instruments for the manufacture of methylamphetamine, and the equipment with which to effect that purpose.  The appellant admitted the manufacture, but said that he did it for his own consumption.  The police did not believe him.  He has since pleaded guilty to trafficking in a drug of dependence.  The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.  Her Honour imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

1. A small quantity of cannabis was also found during the execution of the warrant.  This, too,…