R v Catanzariti

[2006] VSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1433 of 2005

THE QUEEN

v

FRANK CATANZARITI

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Catanzariti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 162

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Cannabis cultivation in a commercial quantity and other offences – Provision of advice and assistance – no direct financial interest – Pleas of guilty, undertaking to give evidence against co-offenders and other mitigating factors – Sentence of two years and four months, wholly suspended for three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Randles	Randles, Cooper & Co

HIS HONOUR:

1. Frank Catanzariti.  You have pleaded guilty to three charges.  The first is of the cultivation at Keilor Park of a commercial quantity of cannabis between 1 August and 12 November 2003.  The second is of the theft at Keilor Park of electricity between those same dates.  The third is of the cultivation at Glenroy of cannabis between 1 and 12 November 2003.  The two counts at Keilor Park relate to the cultivation of cannabis at the home of Craig Galas.  The count at Glenroy relates to the cultivation of cannabis at the home of Ismail Muhaidat.

1. You were arraigned and pleaded guilty on 2 May 2005.  Your sentencing has been delayed.  In May 2005, Galas and Muhaidat had been charged with the murder of Robert D’Amico and with a number of drug and other offences relating to events in late 2003.  At the trial of the murder charge, Galas was found guilty of murder, and Muhaidat was found guilty of manslaughter.  After those verdicts, both men  indicated that they proposed to plead guilty to the offences linked to the cultivation of cannabis in their homes.  You had been prepared to give evidence against them, if required, as to those offences.  You had no part in the events giving rise to the murder of Robert D’Amico.  For reasons that I need not detail here, the pleas in mitigation of Galas and Muhaidat were not heard until December, and they are to be sentenced later today.

1. In late 2003, your then use of cannabis led to your becoming an associate of each of Galas and Muhaidat.  That association made you a person of interest to the police who were investigating the shooting of Robert D’Amico.  In late October and early November 2003, a number of conversations that you had with Craig Galas were recorded.  It was apparent from those conversations that you were working with him on the cultivation of a number of cannabis plants.  On 12 November 2003, you were interviewed by the police as to your association with Galas and Muhaidat and as to the cultivation of cannabis.  At that time, you declined to answer most questions.

1. On 14 April 2005, you provided the police with a detailed statement as to those matters.  In that statement, you provided information as to how, between August and November 2003, you assisted in various ways to cultivate first the cannabis plants at Keilor Park and later the plants at Glenroy.  That assistance included arranging for an electrician to help to adjust the arrangements made at the Keilor Park location to obtain electricity without paying the supplier.  Three bedrooms were utilised at the Keilor Park premises to cultivate 891 plants.  Two bedrooms were utilised at Glenroy to cultivate 18 plants.

1. You have prior convictions in 1982, 1991 and 2002.  In both 1991 and 2002, the convictions included one as to the cultivation of cannabis.  On 24 July 2002, for cultivating cannabis, you were given a sentence of 3 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months.  The high maximum penalties prescribed by Parliament reflect the community attitude that the cultivation of cannabis is to be condemned.  I do accept that the aim of your involvement in the provision of advice and other assistance as to the cultivation of these cannabis plants was not primarily financial.  Your aim was to acquire a large quantity of cannabis for personal use.

1. You are 47 years of age, having been born in December 1958.  You have a supportive family and a supportive partner.  You have five sisters.  In 2004, you returned to live in the home of your parents.  There, you have been assisting your mother to care for your father, who is incapacitated.  You have worked in a variety of jobs over the years.  In 2004, you suffered an injury to your hand which has left ongoing problems, but you have work available to you.  You have been a heavy user of cannabis for many years.  That use has ceased since returning to live with your parents.  Your rehabilitation prospects do appear to be good.

1. An immediate prison term would have been inevitable, but for the significant number of mitigating factors operating in your favour.  I have referred to the supports  that you have, your caring role, your good work record, your hand injury. You have pleaded guilty, and at an early time. You have co-operated with the police.  That co-operation has included that you were prepared to give evidence against Galas and Muhaidat if that had been necessary.  Later events have shown that offer of assistance was not of very great value, given that Galas and Muhaidat each pleaded guilty to the relevant charges.  I nonetheless treat your preparedness to give evidence as a matter of some significance.  I am also mindful that the deferral of the handing down of sentence has necessarily had a somewhat punitive element.

1. The prosecution indicated that a suspended sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed.  There was the proviso that the term of the suspended sentence ought to be a long one.  I am satisfied that the imposition of a suspended sentence of two years and four months, wholly suspended for three years, is the most appropriate course to follow.

1. I have signed the order as to the taking of a forensic sample which was sought and not opposed.  I am required to inform you that a member of the police force may use reasonable force for the procedure to be conducted.  There is no pre-sentence detention to be recorded.  The requirements of the Sentencing Act as to the imposition of a suspended sentence must be complied with.

1. I must take the preliminary step of having you confirm that you understand the effect of a suspended sentence. I am required to explain to you the purpose and effect of the order and of the consequences. Do you understand that by having this suspended sentence you are liable to be sent to prison if you reoffend in any way in or out of Victoria over the next three years?

1. PRISONER: Yes, Your Honour.

1. Is there any other aspect of a suspended sentence you would want me to explain to you in more detail?

1. PRISONER: No.

1. The position is for the next three years you must be on exemplary behaviour and you run the risk that you be brought before me to be resentenced in the event of that not occurring and you could then be obliged to spend two years and 4 months  in prison; do you understand that?

1. PRISONER: Yes.

1. In these circumstances, On Count 1, I sentence you to two years imprisonment.  On Count 2, I sentence you to three months imprisonment, two months concurrent on Count 1.  On Count 3, I sentence you to twelve months imprisonment, nine months concurrent on Count 1.

1. The total effective sentence is two years and four months. I order, pursuant to s.27 of the Sentencing Act 1991, that the sentence be wholly suspended for three years.