R v Carbone - [2018] NSWSC 331

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Carbone [2018] NSWSC 331
Hearing dates: 2 February 2018
Date of orders: 22 March 2018
Decision date: 22 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
Diego Carbone is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 21 years commencing on 23 July 2015 and expiring on 22 July 2036, with an additional term of 7 years, commencing on 23 July 2036 and expiring on 22 July 2043 making a total sentence of 28 years. The earliest day on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 22 July 2036.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder - sentence after trial - joint criminal enterprise - premeditated killing in company - above mid-level of objective seriousness - offender suffering from depression and anxiety - relative youth of the offender - whether the offender has reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 25

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Diego Carbone
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Herps – Crown
Mr W Terracini SC – Offender
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Tsambas & Co Solicitors

File Number(s): 2014/255002
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Introduction

On 20 September 2017 the offender, Diego Carbone, was indicted on a charge that, on 11 August 2014, he murdered Bradley Dillon. He pleaded not guilty, and a jury trial then proceeded. On 12 October the jury returned with a verdict of guilty of murder. The offender now comes to be sentenced for that offence.

Events leading up to the killing

The event which first set in train the various matters leading to Mr Dillon's murder occurred in the middle of July 2014. At that stage the deceased's younger sister, Cassie, had been going out with one Adriano Riccio for about six months. He had drug problems, and he asked her to lend him $2,000 so that he could go to a drug rehabilitation clinic in Broadbeach. She lent him the money, and he promised to return it. In fact he did not go to the rehabilitation clinic. By that time their relationship had ended. Early in August 2014, Ms Dillon, who needed the money, asked for it back. Her initial attempts were unsuccessful, so she enlisted the support of her brother Bradley. Ms Dillon said that Bradley did not know Mr Riccio, but he did know Antonio (Tony) Bagnato, who was Mr Riccio's business partner in that they were co-owners of a club in Oxford Street Darlinghurst. All three of them were members of the St Michael's Fight Club.
It is unnecessary for present purposes to go into the details of the attempts Mr Dillon made in order to have the money repaid to his sister. In due course it was arranged that he would meet some people at or near the Leichhardt Market, in order to sort out the debt. For…

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 Carbone

Details

AGLC: R v Carbone [2018] NSWSC 331
Case: [2018] NSWSC 331
Decision Date: 22 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Carbone, the appellant was convicted of murder following a joint criminal enterprise that involved the premeditated killing of another individual. The matter was brought before the court to determine an appropriate sentence, given the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors presented by the offender's mental health issues and age.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate level of objective seriousness for the crime, the impact of the offender's mental health conditions on sentencing, and the consideration of the offender's prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

The court found that the crime exhibited a high degree of objective seriousness, placing it above the mid-level. However, it also recognised the mitigating factors, including the offender's depression and anxiety, and his relative youth. The court concluded that these factors warranted a degree of leniency in the sentence, while still ensuring that justice was served. The court ultimately determined that the offender had reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation, which influenced the final sentence imposed. The court issued a custodial sentence, taking into account the offender's mental health needs and rehabilitative potential.

Orders