R v Benedetti - [2009] VSC 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1709 of 2008

THE QUEEN

ROBERT BENEDETTI

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	6 October, 19 December 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 February 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Benedetti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 8

---

Plea of guilty, trafficking in a drug of dependence (commercial quantity), trafficking in a drug of dependence, firearm offences.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C Barbagallo	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Dane QC with Mr J Gullaci	Haines and Polites

HER HONOUR:

Robert Benedetti you have pleaded guilty to Count 1, a count of trafficking a commercial quantity of cocaine at Melbourne between 1 April 2006 and 5 June 2007. Count 2, a count of trafficking methylamphetamine at Melbourne between 1 April 2006 and 5 June 2007, and Counts 3 and 4, being two counts of possession of an unregistered category A longarm by a non-prohibited person at Templestowe on 5 June 2007. You further pleaded guilty to three summary offences; one of failing to store a category A or B longarm correctly, one of failing to store a handgun correctly and one of failing to store cartridge and ammunition correctly. All of those offences arise from s 121 of the Firearms Act 1996.

You are now 43 years of age. You were between 40 to 41 years of age at the time of the commission of the offences having been born on 2 January 1966. You have pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2 on the basis that you were the supplier of a commercial quantity of cocaine being in excess of 500 grams to a large illicit drug trafficking enterprise which was known as the company. You also supplied methylamphetamine to the company in a quantity that was less than 1.25 kilograms.

In relation to Count 1, the trafficking of a commercial quantity of cocaine at Melbourne between 1 April 2006 and 5 June 2007, at the time of the offending you were working in a motor mechanic business and you were a member of the same gymnasium as some of the members of the company, being Mansour, Rizzo and Ferraro. From my understanding that was how you met and became involved with this group, you conducted the transactions either using your business premises or the gymnasium.

In relation to Count 1, the trafficking of cocaine in respect of the company, that was conducted on behalf of the company almost exclusively by Rizzo, wherein he would purchase cocaine from you and then on-sell it to others. Between April 2006 and June of 2007 you supplied Rizzo with in excess of 500 grams of cocaine. The vast majority of this cocaine was purchased by Rizzo on behalf of the company. The remainder was acquired by Rizzo in what was described as his personal side business. The company would pay you between $7,000 and $8,000…

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 Benedetti

Details

AGLC: R v Benedetti [2009] VSC 8
Case: [2009] VSC 8
Decision Date: 9 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Benedetti, the defendant stood before the court facing multiple charges, including trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, trafficking in a drug of dependence, and firearm offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to all charges, prompting the court to consider sentencing in light of the serious nature of the offences.

The central legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's admissions, particularly given the severity and scale of the drug trafficking and the possession and use of firearms in relation to these activities. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of justice and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the totality of the defendant's criminal conduct and the principles of proportionality in sentencing.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. It was noted that the defendant had a significant criminal record and had been involved in high-level drug trafficking, which posed a serious threat to public safety. The court found that the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence to ensure public protection and to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. The court sentenced the defendant to a total of fifteen years imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders