Local Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Police v VIMPANI [2008] NSWLC 14 JURISDICTION: Criminal PARTIES: POLICE
VIMPANI, DeanFILE NUMBER: H14675968; H18808541; H141799293; H33391687 H29670130; H30761803; H32376662; PLACE OF HEARING: Albury Local Court DATE OF DECISION: 07/15/2008 MAGISTRATE: Magistrate G Lerve CATCHWORDS: Multiple offending – Break Enter and Steal – cumulation of sentence – breach of conditional liberty – efforts at rehabilitation prior to sentence LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900 CASES CITED: Pearce –v- The Queen (1998) 103 A Crim R 372
R –v-Barlow [2008] NSWCCA 96
R –v- Bolter [2002] NSWCCA 435
R –v- Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115
R –v- Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R –v- Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R –v- Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
R –v- Jones unrep. NSWCCA 30.6.1994
R –v- Kite [2008] NSWDC 7
R –v- Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
R –v- Nguyen [2007] NSWCCA 14
R –v- Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
R –v- Wallace [2006] NSWCCA 63
R –v- Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17TEXTS CITED: REPRESENTATION: Mr. R. Kanakaratne, Solicitor, Office of the DPP
Sgt. A. Seccull, Police Prosecutor
Mr. T. Hemsley, SolicitorORDERS:
1. These matters came before me on 23 June 2008, a list day. There are seven different sets of papers relating to an equal number of series of offences. Many of the offences on which I have to pass sentence are Break Enter and Steal offences. When the matters came before me on 23 June 2008 I took the view that they required consideration beyond what was possible on a busy list day. Accordingly, I adjourned the matters in order that I could properly consider the matters. Given the significant number of offences, and some of the issues involved, I have reduced my remarks on sentence to writing.
H14675968 – Steal from the Person; Fail to Appear
2. I will deal with the series of matters in chronological order. The first matters are contained within the papers H14675968, and are offences of Steal from the Person and Fail to Appear. The offences occurred on 25 May 2002 and first came before a Court on 18 September 2002. The notation on the papers is unclear as to whether the offender was in attendance on that date but the matter was adjourned to 11 October 2002. There was no appearance of the offender on that date and a warrant was issued for the arrest of the offender. The matters then came before the Court on 18 October 2007, 22 October 2007 and 23 October 2007. Pleas of Guilty were entered in October. The matters have then had a number of appearances before the Court waiting on decisions as to what was to occur with some of the other matters. Given the non-appearance I allow what I consider to be a generous 15% for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. The utilitarian value in the plea is the authorities not having to resurrect the file and find witnesses in respect of something that…
Continue reading Police v VIMPANI
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Vimpani [2008] NSWLC 14
- Case
- [2008] NSWLC 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address included the cumulative effect of the respondent's multiple offences and their breach of conditional liberty, as well as the respondent's efforts at rehabilitation prior to sentencing. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, the impact of the breach of conditional liberty, and the respondent's personal circumstances and efforts at rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence that would serve the interests of justice, considering both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously weighed the respondent's history of multiple offences and the breach of conditional liberty against their efforts at rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the respondent's attempts to address their criminal behaviour but also recognised the seriousness of the offences committed. The court concluded that the respondent's breach of conditional liberty and the cumulative nature of the offences warranted a sentence that would serve as a deterrent while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that balanced these considerations, taking into account the respondent's efforts at rehabilitation and the need to protect the community.
The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, the breach of conditional liberty, and the respondent's efforts at rehabilitation. The court provided detailed reasons for the sentence, ensuring that the decision was transparent and justifiable. The sentence was designed to address the respondent's criminal behaviour while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation, in line with the principles of sentencing in Australian law.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. These matters came before me on 23 June 2008, a list day. There are seven different sets of papers relating to an equal number of series of offences. Many of the offences on which I have to pass sentence are Break Enter and Steal offences. When the matters came before me on 23 June 2008 I took the view that they required consideration beyond what was possible on a busy list day. Accordingly, I adjourned the matters in order that I could properly consider the matters. Given the significant number of offences, and some of the issues involved, I have reduced my remarks on sentence to writing.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.