Natoli v R - [2009] NSWCCA 36

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Natoli v R [2009] NSWCCA 36

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; James J at 2; Buddin J at 41

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal allowed in part.
(3) Vary the sentences for counts 4 and 5 so that they commence on 30 November 2007 and expire on 29 May 2012.
(4) Vary the sentence for the committal offence so that it commences on 30 November 2008 and expires on 29 August 2012.
(5) Quash the sentence on count 1 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of two years eight months commencing on 30 November 2010 and expiring on 29 July 2013 and a parole period of three years four months commencing on 30 July 2013 and expiring on 29 November 2016.
(6) Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge.
(7) The earliest date on which the applicant would be eligible for release on parole will be 29 July 2013.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — armed robberies — whether sentences manifestly excessive — no question of principle

CASES CITED: Cahyahi v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
R v Weldon (2002) 136 A Crim R 55
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

TEXTS CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Crimes Act

PARTIES: NATOLI, Dominic
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/13044

COUNSEL: C A Davenport SC - Appellant
V J Lydiard - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0623

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods DCJ

2007/13044

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
BUDDIN J
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2009

NATOLI, Dominic v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with James J.

2 JAMES J: Dominic Natoli applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court by his Honour Judge Woods for a number of offences to which he had pleaded guilty.

3 All but one of the offences for which the applicant was sentenced had been included in an indictment. These offences were:-

Count 1 — an offence of assaulting with intent to rob whilst armed with an offensive weapon, namely a handgun, which was committed on 17 November 2006.

4 The applicant was also sentenced for an offence of robbery in company committed on 26 November 2006, which was not included in the indictment. This offence was referred to in the proceedings on sentence as “the committal offence” or as “offence 10”.

5 In sentencing the applicant for the offence charged in the first count in the indictment the…

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 Natoli v R

Details

AGLC: Natoli v R [2009] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 25 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natoli v R involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, who was convicted of multiple armed robberies. The respondent was sentenced to a total of 17 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 12 years. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, which would require the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction under section 7 of the High Court (Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal) Act 1975 (Cth). The court needed to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and number of the offences, the culpability of the offender, and the impact on the victims. The court was also required to consider the principles of parity in sentencing, ensuring that similar offenders receive similar sentences.

In its reasoning, the court examined the severity of the crimes and the appropriate punishment for armed robberies. It found that the total sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not depart from the fundamental principles of sentencing. The court considered the respondent's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the robberies, and the impact on the victims. It also assessed whether the sentence was disproportionate compared to other similar cases. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The respondent's sentence of 17 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years, remained in effect. The High Court's decision affirmed the Court of Appeal's original sentence and reinforced the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances when determining an appropriate punishment for multiple serious offences.

Orders