Pisano v Dandris (No 4) - [2015] NSWSC 1689

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pisano v Dandris (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1689
Hearing dates: 21 August 2015, 16 October 2015 and 6 November 2015
Date of orders: 06 November 2015
Decision date: 06 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List
Before: McDougall J
Decision:
Order First Defendant to perform 40 hours of community service by way of punishment for contempt of court.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – contempt – punishment options the same irrespective of whether contempt is civil or criminal – aggravating and mitigating factors – deliberate nature of the defiance – absence of harm in reality – whether evidence of character should be admitted – considerations of vindication, deterrence and punishment – mere admonition insufficient to achieve those ends – relevance of contemnor’s travel plans
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: ASIC v Sigalla (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 82
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125
Pang v Bydand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 69
Pisano v Dandris [2015] NSWSC 1219
Pisano v Dandris (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1220
Pisano v Dandris (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1251
Category: Sentence
Parties: Bruno Pisano (First Plaintiff)
Sia Pisano (Second Plaintiff)
Georgia Dandris (First Defendant)
Patrick Francis Williams (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
DS Weinberger / AF Knox (Plaintiffs)
J Jobson (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Zelden Solicitors (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/283119

Judgment (EX TEMPORE – REVISED 6 NOVEMBER 2015)

HIS HONOUR: On 21 August 2015 I heard a notice of motion filed for the plaintiffs charging the first defendant (Ms Dandris) with some twenty-two charges of contempt of Court. The contempts charged related to twenty-two alleged breaches of a freezing order that the Court had earlier made.
For reasons that I gave on the day (Pisano v Dandris [2015] NSWSC 1219), I held that some twenty of the twenty-two charges could not be made good having regard to their formulation and the evidence. That left two charges - the first and the last - for consideration.
On the same day, I concluded that of those two charges, contempt was proved as to one transfer underlying (and part of) the first charge, but not as to the last charge (Pisano v Dandris(No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1220). In respect of the charge that had been proved, I stood the matter over so that Ms Dandris and her counsel could consider their position, particularly in relation to the question of any penalty.
On 27 August 2015, having heard submissions (and having noted that the parties did not place any further evidence before the Court), I concluded that it could be appropriate to consider the imposition of a Community Service Order under s 86 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (the Sentencing Procedure Act). Accordingly, I directed the preparation of an assessment report for the purposes of s 86, and stood the matter over yet again (Pisano v Dandris(No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1251).
A…

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 Pisano v Dandris (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Pisano v Dandris (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1689
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1689
Decision Date: 06 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pisano v Dandris (No 4) was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute between the parties centred on the sentencing of a person found to be in contempt of court. The contempt arose from the defendant's non-compliance with a court order and his subsequent defiant behaviour during a hearing. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate punishment for the defendant's contemptuous conduct, considering the principles and options available for sentencing in cases of both civil and criminal contempt.

The court was required to assess the aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the contempt. In this case, the defendant's deliberate nature of defiance and the absence of actual harm were significant considerations. The court also had to determine whether evidence of the defendant's character should be admitted and weighed in the sentencing process. The primary objectives in sentencing for contempt are to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, provide deterrence, and ensure appropriate punishment. The court considered that a mere admonition would be insufficient to achieve these ends. The relevance of the defendant's travel plans was also factored into the sentencing decision, as it related to the potential for flight and the effectiveness of any imposed punishment.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions warranted a substantial sentence, taking into account the need for vindication, deterrence, and punishment. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the necessity to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court's decision emphasised the importance of appropriate sentencing to maintain the rule of law and the respect due to the court's authority.

Orders