R v Casagrande - [2009] QCA 1

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Casagrande [2009] QCA 1

PARTIES:

R
v
CASAGRANDE, Domenico John
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 302 of 2008
SC No 719 of 2008
SC No 1019 of 2008
SC No 1060 of 2008
SC No 1062 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2009

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY CROWN – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent was convicted of trafficking in a schedule 1 drug – where respondent trafficked in cocaine and ecstasy – where respondent was 17 at time of offence – where respondent had no prior criminal history – where respondent cooperated with police – where satisfactory performance on parole – where respondent undertook voluntary psychological counselling – whether sentence failed to reflect respondent’s criminality and need for deterrence

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v McAway[2008] QCA 401, considered

COUNSEL:

B G Campbell for the applicant
A Vasta QC, with J E Smith, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant
Wilson Lawyers for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The Honourable the Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent for two offences which form part of a series of offences. The subject two offences were the most serious of those to which the respondent pleaded guilty. They were, carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in cocaine, a Schedule 1 drug, and unlawfully trafficking in MDMA, which is a Schedule 2 drug. The other charges in the series were of supply and possession of unlawful drugs.

The appeal, as I have said, relates to the sentences imposed in respect of the trafficking offences, and they were three years' imprisonment with immediate release on parole. The appellant's contention is that the sentence thus imposed failed to reflect both the respondent's substantial criminality and also the important need in cases of this nature for both special and general deterrence. Mr Campbell, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that a sentence of four years' imprisonment with parole after 12 to 15 months should have been imposed.

At the time of the offences the respondent was 17 years of age. He had no prior criminal history. Beset by low self‑esteem, he had progressed from steroid use in the early stages to a Cocaine and Ecstasy addiction. He trafficked in those drugs over a period of eight and a half months in part to feed his own addiction, but in the later stages profiting, he believed, to the tune of approximately $1,000 per week. In the later stages of the period of eight and a half months, as he informed the police, he…

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 Casagrande

Details

AGLC: R v Casagrande [2009] QCA 1
Case: [2009] QCA 1
Decision Date: 4 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Casagrande was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Casagrande, who was convicted of trafficking in a schedule 1 drug. The respondent had trafficked in cocaine and ecstasy and was 17 years old at the time of the offence. Notably, Casagrande had no prior criminal history and cooperated with the police, performing satisfactorily on parole and voluntarily undertaking psychological counselling. The Crown appealed the sentence on the basis that it failed to adequately reflect the respondent's criminality and the need for deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Casagrande was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances. The Crown argued that the sentence did not appropriately weigh the seriousness of the offence, the respondent's culpability, and the need to deter similar criminal activities. The court had to consider the mitigating factors presented, such as the respondent's age, lack of prior criminal history, cooperation with authorities, and engagement in rehabilitation, against the gravity of the offence and the objectives of sentencing.

The court found that the sentence imposed adequately reflected the respondent's criminality and the need for deterrence. It took into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need for sentences to reflect both the culpability of the offender and the societal interest in deterrence. After a thorough review, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed on Casagrande. This outcome underscores the court's approach to balancing the need for deterrence with the specific circumstances of the offender, including age and cooperation with authorities.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 Casagrande [2009] QCA 1
PARTIES:	R v CASAGRANDE, Domenico John (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 302 of 2008 SC No 719 of 2008 SC No 1019 of 2008 SC No 1060 of 2008 SC No 1062 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	4 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2009
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY CROWN – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent was convicted of trafficking in a schedule 1 drug – where respondent trafficked in cocaine and ecstasy – where respondent was 17 at time of offence – where respondent had no prior criminal history – where respondent cooperated with police – where satisfactory performance on parole – where respondent undertook voluntary psychological counselling – whether sentence failed to reflect respondent’s criminality and need for deterrence Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) R v McAway[2008] QCA 401, considered
COUNSEL:	B G Campbell for the applicant A Vasta QC, with J E Smith, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant Wilson Lawyers for the respondent