Pato v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 223

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0285

RODNEY JOHN PATO
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	HARPER and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 August 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 223
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	(Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Pilgrim, 13 August 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – Plea of guilty – Judge purported to apply R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 but without explanation – Verdins factors relevant to limited extent – Sentence of three years’ imprisonment and non-parole period of 18 months reflected appropriate moderation of sentence on account of appellant’s mental impairment – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P J Matthews	VLA Bendigo
For the Crown	Mr M Roper	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HARPER JA:

1. I invite Hansen JA to give the first judgment in this matter.

HANSEN JA:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Bendigo to one count of recklessly causing serious injury.  Following a plea in mitigation, on 13 August 2010 the appellant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.  The judge fixed a non‑parole period of 18 months.

1. Pursuant to leave previously granted, the appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1.The learned judge failed to give sufficient weight to the psychiatric condition of the appellant both at the time of offence and at the time of sentence.

2.The head sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive.   

1. The offending occurred in the home in the early hours of 23 March 2009 in the context of an argument between the appellant, then aged 40, and his then de facto partner, Wendy Dickerson.  The argument had apparently developed over several days in relation to a household blind.  The appellant was drunk, became angry and picked up a stool, using it to hit the wall.  As a result, a newspaper cutting fell to the floor and the appellant told Ms Dickerson to pick it up.  He then grabbed her by the hair and pulled her over the couch.  He then grabbed her throat with such force that he fractured her thyroid cartilage.  Having been released from his hold, Ms Dickerson called the appellant a drunk, slapped his face with an open hand and poured the contents of his beer can down the sink.  The appellant then pushed Ms Dickerson into the stove, then down onto the floor where he stood astride her and punched her to the head and body.  She suffered multiple facial fractures, bruising and a bout of acute pancreatitis.  The pancreatitis involved aggravation of a pre‑existing condition.  The next morning the appellant told Ms Dickerson that it was her fault that she caused him to do what he did.  It was only when her employer

and work colleagues became concerned that the police became involved several days later.

1. The appellant gave a no comment interview…