Legal Research
Cases
Piacentino v The Queen

Piacentino v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 153 26 June 2019

Appeal

Sentencing

Breach of Parity Principle

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0058

STORM PIACENTINO	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 June 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 June 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 153
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Piacentino [2018] VCC 1552 (Judge Riddell)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Armed robbery – Victim robbed of car – Chainsaw used to lacerate victim’s arm – Guilty plea – Sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and seven months – Whether sentencing judge failed to pay proper regard to applicant’s intellectual disability – Co-offender sentenced to 612 days imprisonment with a three year community correction order – Whether breach of parity principle – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Lenthall	Papa Hughes Lawyers
For the Crown	Ms M Mahady	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

During the evening of 28 February 2017, the applicant, Storm Piacentino, armed with a chainsaw which he used to cause a large laceration to his victim’s arm, robbed Mina Mankarious (‘Mankarious’) of a BMW motor vehicle. He committed this armed robbery with Omar Altaee (‘Altaee’) and another male.

On 23 January 2018 the applicant pleaded guilty before a judge in the County Court to armed robbery[1] (charge 1) and on 5 June 2018 pleaded guilty to dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime[2] (a related summary offence).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 75A(1). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 195. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

Following a plea hearing conducted on 5 June 2018, on 21 September 2018 the judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for four years and three months on charge 1 and for six months on the related summary offence. Two months of the sentence on the related summary offence was ordered to be served cumulatively upon the sentence for armed robbery, thus producing a total effective sentence of four years and five months’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of two years and seven months.[3] Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the judge declared that, but for the plea of guilty, she would have sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.
[3]The judge also ordered forfeiture of registration plates, tools and items of clothing.

Altaee also pleaded guilty before the same judge to the armed robbery (charge 1). Additionally, he pleaded guilty to reckless conduct endangering serious injury (charge 2); criminal damage (charge 3); possessing a drug of dependence (charge 4); and to unlicensed driving (related summary offence). On 11 February 2019, the judge sentenced Altaee to 612 days’ imprisonment (which represented the time that he had spent in custody), together…

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 Piacentino v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Piacentino v The Queen [2019] VSCA 153
Case: [2019] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 26 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piacentino v The Queen involved an appeal by the applicant against his sentence following a guilty plea to armed robbery. The applicant used a chainsaw to lacerate the arm of the victim during the course of robbing them of their car. The applicant was sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. The co-offender, who was not the one wielding the chainsaw, was sentenced to 612 days imprisonment with a three year community correction order. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider his intellectual disability and that the sentences imposed breached the parity principle.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to pay proper regard to the applicant’s intellectual disability and whether the disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender breached the parity principle. The applicant contended that his disability should have led to a lesser sentence, and the disparity in their sentences was unjust.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant’s intellectual disability but concluded that it did not warrant a lesser sentence in this case. The court also held that the sentencing judge had given adequate reasons for the disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender, and there was no breach of the parity principle. The court emphasised the seriousness of the armed robbery and the use of a chainsaw in the offence, which justified the applicant’s sentence. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not breach any legal principles.

Orders