R v Cambareri - [2001] VSCA 39

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 58 of 2000
No. 48 of 2000
No. 56 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
ROCCO CAMBARERI & ORS

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING and TADGELL, JJ.A. and COLDREY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 March 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 April 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 39

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking in heroin and amphetamines – Drug-dealing business – Sentencing considerations – Police interview of co-offender – Permissible use – Weight accorded to mitigating factors – Parity among co-offenders – Sentences (up to 9 years with minimum of 7) not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Mr P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Cambareri	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Pryles & Defteros
For the Applicant Mealy	Mr P. Morrissey	Slade & Parsons
For the Applicant Bortolani	Mr M. Croucher	Leanne Warren & Associates

BROOKING, J.A.:

Late in 1997 police began an investigation – they called it “Operation JATH” – into a trade in heroin and other drugs in Reservoir, Keon Park, Thomastown and neighbouring suburbs – a trade centred in Reservoir and in a man named Rocco Cambareri. The investigation went on for a year, with police surveillance, undercover police officers posing as drug purchasers and the help of a police informer named Dri. And so it came to pass that in March 2000 five persons pleaded guilty in the County Court to various offences, while others were dealt with summarily. The offences to which those five persons pleaded guilty and the sentences imposed can be shortly summarised as follows:

*Offender*	*Offence*	*Individual Sentences*	*Total Effective Sentence*	*Non-parole Period*
Cambareri	Traffick heroin between 1/7/98 and 12/11/98 Traffick amphetamine between 6/8/98 and 12/11/98	9 years 9 years	9 years	7 years
Bortolani	Traffick heroin between 1/5/98 and 12/11/98 Possess amphetamine on 12/11/98	4 yrs 6 mths 3 months	4 yrs 6 mths	2 yrs 6 mths
Bullivant	Traffick heroin between 4/2/98 and 1/9/98 Traffick amphetamine on 27/8/98	5 yrs 6 mths 5 yrs 6 mths	5 yrs 6 mths	3 years

Mealy

Traffick heroin between 6/8/98 and 5/10/98

Traffick amphetamine between 6/8/98 and 5/10/98

Traffick cannabis between 6/8/98 and 5/10/98

5 years

3 years

Kain

Traffick heroin between 6/8/98 and 30/9/98

Traffick amphetamine between 6/8/98 and 30/9/98

Traffick cannabis between 6/8/98 and 30/9/98

16 months

All but 4 months suspended

This tabulation excludes four summary offences committed by Bortolani and dealt with by consent, for which sentences of up to three months’ imprisonment were passed, all these sentences being concurrent with all sentences imposed. The maximum penalty for all the trafficking offences was 15 years.

The case is yet another example of the dangerous and resourceful work done by undercover officers as part of a patient, well planned and well executed police investigation.

Pursuant to leave granted under s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958 on 1 September 2000…

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 Cambareri

Details

AGLC: R v Cambareri [2001] VSCA 39
Case: [2001] VSCA 39
Decision Date: 3 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Cambareri, the defendant was convicted of multiple offences related to drug trafficking, specifically the trafficking of heroin and amphetamines, within a drug-dealing business. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was considered by the appellant to be manifestly excessive.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the permissible use of a police interview with a co-offender in sentencing, the weight to be given to mitigating factors, and the principle of parity among co-offenders. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed, which was up to 9 years with a minimum of 7 years, was manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances of the case.

In its judgment, the court held that the interview with the co-offender was properly used as it provided context and insight into the appellant's role and the broader drug-dealing business. The court also found that the mitigating factors presented, such as the appellant's early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, were appropriately considered and weighed against the gravity of the offences. The court further noted that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive when compared to the seriousness of the crimes and the appellant's culpability. The principle of parity among co-offenders was also taken into account, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and fair.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the nature and circumstances of the offences committed by the appellant.

Orders