JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF PLEA:	11 May 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 May 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Buscema
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 206

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice – False statements made to Police in course of murder investigation – Mitigating features, early plea of guilty – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R F Edney	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Ryan Buscema, you have pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and it is now for me to sentence you.

The facts of the offending

Your offending consisted of lying to police in an attempt to help John Leslie Coombes avoid detection for what you believed to be drug trafficking activities. At Coombes’ request, on 22 August 2009 you made a false statement in writing to police to the effect that you dined with Coombes at his home on the evening of 11 August 2009 and slept at his home that night, which suggested that Coombes remained at home for the night, and then, later on 22 August 2009, you made a second false statement in writing, to the effect that you worked with Coombes on the evening of 12 August 2009 fixing a security camera at premises in Dandenong. Although each of those statements bore an acknowledgment immediately above your signature that you made the statement in the belief that a person making a false statement in the circumstances was liable to the penalties of perjury, both were deliberate lies.

The Crown accepts that you so lied because you believed that you were providing Coombes with a false alibi for drug trafficking activities. In fact, although it is not suggested that you knew it, Coombes asked you to lie in order to provide him with a false alibi for the murder of Raechel Betts on 12 August 2009.

On 2 November 2009, after taking legal advice, you participated in a record of interview in which you stated, among other things, that:

· You were aware of the general circumstances of Raechel Betts’ murder;

· You had met her half a dozen times at Coombes’ place;

· You had met Coombes through your ex-girlfriend Kellie Kreitling, some two years before;

· When you made the two statements to police on 22 August 2009, you believed the statements were sought by police because you were one of the last people to see the deceased;

· When you saw the deceased on 11 August 2009 – the day she went missing – ‘she was pulling into Coombes’s…

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 Buscema

Details

AGLC: R v Buscema [2011] VSC 206
Case: [2011] VSC 206
Decision Date: 16 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Buscema, the respondent was convicted of providing false information to law enforcement during a murder investigation. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the respondent’s actions, which included making false statements to police during a critical investigation.

The court was tasked with determining the sentence for the offence of providing false information to police, considering the nature of the offence and its impact on the investigation. The court also had to weigh various mitigating factors, including the respondent’s early plea of guilty and his prospects for rehabilitation. The respondent argued that his actions were influenced by fear and that he had good prospects of rehabilitation, while the prosecution emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, recognising that providing false information to police during a murder investigation could significantly impede the pursuit of justice. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors presented, including the respondent’s early guilty plea and the lack of any prior criminal history. The court concluded that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors warranted a more lenient sentence. The court sentenced the respondent to two years and six months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, taking into account the respondent’s prospects for rehabilitation and the absence of any significant risk to the community.

The court ordered that the sentence be wholly suspended, reflecting its view that a custodial sentence was not necessary given the circumstances of the case.

Orders