Legal Research
Cases
Picone v The Queen

Picone v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 5 5 February 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0109

CHRISTINE PICONE	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 February 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 February 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 5	1^stRevision 15 May 2015: [7] n 8
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Picone (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Sexton, 9 May 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Intentionally causing serious injury — Appellant sentenced to be imprisoned for 6 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Appeal allowed — Appellant sentenced to be imprisoned for 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D A Glynn	Tony Hannebery Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Pursuant to leave granted 4 September 2014, the present appeal is brought against a sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, imposed upon the appellant by a judge of the County Court on 9 May 2014 following her conviction by a jury on a charge of intentionally causing serious injury.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 16. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant’s ground of appeal[2] is:
[2]Leave to appeal was refused on two further grounds. The appellant has not elected to pursue them.

Ground 1: That the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, in particular that it gave insufficient weight to:
(a) the [appellant’s] remorse and acceptance of a large measure of responsibility for the offending as shown by her guilty plea to recklessly causing serious injury;
(b) the very significant additional burden of imprisonment on the [appellant] by reason of the enforced separation from her children and her knowledge of having left them without a parent;
(c) the [appellant’s] depression and anxiety, which increased the burden of imprisonment on her;
(d) that the [appellant] suffered from impaired mental wellbeing at the time of the commission of the offence which had resulted from sustained and serious domestic violence;
(e) the fact that the [appellant] had never previously been sentenced to imprisonment.

For the reasons that follow, we would allow the appeal, and would sentence the appellant to be imprisoned for five years, upon which we would fix a non-parole period of three years’ imprisonment.

When arraigned before a jury in the County Court in February 2014 on the charge of intentionally causing serious injury, the appellant pleaded guilty to the lesser alternative offence, recklessly causing serious injury.[3] The prosecution declined to accept that plea, and the jury convicted her on the more serious charge.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 17. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

In his reasons granting leave, Weinberg JA described the appellant’s offending as follows:[4]

… The victim, Douglas Farquhar, had,…

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 Picone v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Picone v The Queen [2015] VSCA 5
Case: [2015] VSCA 5
Decision Date: 5 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Picone was the appellant in the case before the court, with the Crown acting as the respondent. The dispute centred on the sentence handed down to the appellant for intentionally causing serious injury to another person. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was unjust and disproportionate to the offence, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence could be reduced while still being commensurate with the crime.

The High Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to ensure that sentences are appropriate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court took into account the principles of sentencing, the relevant statutory provisions, and the particular circumstances of the case. After a thorough review of the evidence and the principles of sentencing, the High Court determined that the appropriate sentence for the appellant was 5 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the original sentence was set aside.

Orders