R v Antoniutti - [2003] QCA 360

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Antoniutti [2003] QCA 360
PARTIES: R
v
ANTONIUTTI, Christopher Raymond
(applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 164 of 2003 DC No 213 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 21 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 August 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Muir and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, substitute a sentence of two years imprisonment
to be suspended after serving nine months with an
operational period of two years. Otherwise sentence at
first instance confirmed.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – where applicant convicted of property offences
and sentenced to three years imprisonment – whether learned
primary judge placed undue emphasis on the applicant’s
failure to disclose the identity of his co-offenders – whether
sentence manifestly excessive
R v B [2003] QCA 169; CA No 15 of 2003, 24 April 2003,
applied
R v Priman [1999] QCA 65; CA No 426 of 1998, 15 March
1999, considered
R v Walters [2002] QCA 76; CA No 342 of 2001, 14 March
2002, considered
COUNSEL: A W Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: On the 16th of May 2003 the applicant pleaded not guilty to breaking and entering premises and stealing (count 1), wilful damage (count 2), unlawfully possessing a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence with a circumstance of aggravation (count 3), and guilty to one count of stealing (count 4). On 19 May 2003 he was acquitted of the first two counts and found guilty of the third count. The learned primary Judge noted that by the end of the trial, the applicant did not contest his responsibility for count 3. On 22 May 2003 he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on count 3 and 18 months' imprisonment on count 4 with a declaration as to presentence custody and a recommendation that he undergo a victim empathy program.

The offence of stealing concerned tools valued at $11,611.41 belonging to the owner of the motor vehicle. They were in the Toyota Landcruiser vehicle when it was taken from Ingham. It was cut up into parts at Mount Fox north-west of Townsville. It was not insured and a replacement vehicle would have cost about $20,000. The applicant cut up the vehicle with the assistance of others so that he could conceal his involvement. Only a few parts valued at about $3,000 were recovered. The tools, which were insured, were also not recovered.

The applicant contends the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the learned primary Judge placed undue emphasis…

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 R v Antoniutti

Details

AGLC: R v Antoniutti [2003] QCA 360
Case: [2003] QCA 360
Decision Date: 21/08/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Antoniutti, the applicant was convicted of various property offences and sentenced to three years imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal and subsequently allowed the appeal. The court substituted the original sentence with a sentence of two years imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the court should substitute a different sentence. The applicant argued that the original sentence was excessive because it did not take into account mitigating factors such as the applicant's age, good character, and the fact that the offences were committed under duress. The Crown argued that the original sentence was appropriate because the offences were serious and the applicant had a lengthy criminal history.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive because it did not take into account all the relevant mitigating factors. The court noted that the applicant was a young person at the time of the offences and had no prior criminal history. The court also noted that the offences were committed under duress and that the applicant had shown remorse and cooperated with the authorities. The court held that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court substituted a sentence of two years imprisonment, which it considered to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, substitute a sentence of two years imprisonment

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.

CITATION:	R v Antoniutti [2003] QCA 360
PARTIES:	R v ANTONIUTTI, Christopher Raymond (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 164 of 2003 DC No 213 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX	21 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, substitute a sentence of two years imprisonment
to be suspended after serving nine months with an operational period of two years. Otherwise sentence at first instance confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – where applicant convicted of property offences and sentenced to three years imprisonment – whether learned primary judge placed undue emphasis on the applicant’s failure to disclose the identity of his co-offenders – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v B [2003] QCA 169; CA No 15 of 2003, 24 April 2003, applied R v Priman [1999] QCA 65; CA No 426 of 1998, 15 March 1999, considered R v Walters [2002] QCA 76; CA No 342 of 2001, 14 March 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent