R v Amato

Case [2013] QCA 158

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Amato [2013] QCA 158

PARTIES:

R
v
AMATO, Rosario
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 308 of 2012
DC No 981 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary by breaking in the night, with violence, while armed, in company, with property damage, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, in company, one count of armed robbery in company with personal violence, and one count of armed robbery in company – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years on counts 1, 3 and 4, and five years on count 2 – where the applicant was given a parole eligibility date after having served one half of the effective sentence of seven years – where the applicant contended that the sentence was rendered manifestly excessive by reason of the fixing of parole eligibility after one half of the effective term rather than after one third – where the applicant argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the plea of guilty and other mitigating factors – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182, s 184
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13, s 160C, s 161B

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v A [2001] QCA 56, cited
R v Aaron Blenkinsop [2007] QCA 181, cited
R v Awai, Rapana and Rapana [1994] QCA 252, considered
R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393; [1999] QCA 100, considered
R v Dodds[2003] QCA 540, considered
R v Hill[2012] QCA 59, cited
R v Jones[2000] QCA 84, considered
R v Kitson[2008] QCA 86, cited
R v Leu; R v Togia (2008) 186 A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, cited
R v PAA[2006] QCA 56, cited
R v Rankin[2004] QCA 2, cited
R v Ruha, Ruha and Harris; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] 2 Qd R 456; (2010) 198 A Crim R 430; [2010] QCA 10, cited
R v Tez[2007] QCA 227, cited
R v Torrens[2011] QCA 38, cited
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited

COUNSEL:

D R MacKenzie for the applicant
P McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gary Rolfe Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and the order…

Continue reading R v Amato

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Amato [2013] QCA 158
Case
[2013] QCA 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria, contending that it was manifestly excessive. He pleaded guilty to multiple serious charges, including burglary, assault, and armed robbery, all committed in company and involving violence and personal violence. The applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with the longest sentences being seven years for three counts and five years for another. The parole eligibility date was set after the applicant had served half of the effective term of seven years. The applicant argued that this timing rendered the sentence manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the plea of guilty and other mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the timing of the parole eligibility date and whether the sentencing judge appropriately weighed the mitigating factors. The applicant contended that the parole eligibility should have been set after serving one third, rather than one half, of the effective sentence, which would have been more lenient. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentencing judge did not give adequate weight to the plea of guilty and other mitigating factors that should have resulted in a reduced sentence.

The court considered the arguments and found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court reasoned that the parole eligibility date was appropriately set after one half of the effective term, which was a permissible range under sentencing guidelines. The court also found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors, including the plea of guilty, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, holding that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The Supreme Court of Victoria refused the application, upholding the original sentence. The court confirmed that the parole eligibility date was correctly set and that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the mitigating factors. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to sentencing guidelines and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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.