SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Fischetti [No 5] |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 213 |
Hearing Dates: | 4 April 2016 – 30 May 2016, 10 August 2016, 8 December 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 14 December 2016 |
Before: | Robinson AJ |
Decision: | See [86]-[99] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offender found guilty by jury – multiple offences – obtain property by deception – attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception – use a false document – relevant criminal history. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 326, 332, 346, 347 Crimes (Sentencing)_Act (ACT), ss 7(1), 33(1)(h), 33(1)(o), 34(1) |
Cases Cited: | R v Fischetti [No 4] [2016] ACTSC 292 Landsman v R [2014] NSWCCA 328; 88 NSWLR 534 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Frank John Fischetti (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms M Jones and Ms M. Moss (Crown) Mr R McCrudden (Offender) between 4 April 2016 and 30 May 2016 Mr W Barber (Offender) on 10 August 2016 and 8 December 2016 |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Macquarie Lawyers (Offender) between 4 April 2016 and 30 May 2016 Bevan & Co Lawyers (Offender) on 10 August 2016 and 8 December 2016 | |
File Number: | SCC 95 of 2015 |
ROBINSON AJ:
On 4 April 2016, Frank John Fischetti, “the offender”, stood trial before a jury on an indictment containing 13 counts. I directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty in respect of the 13th count shortly after the trial commenced. The remaining counts were the subject of a lengthy trial.
On 30 May 2016, the offender was found guilty by the jury on the following counts:
(a)(Count 1) That between 20 November 2013 and 15 December 2013 at Canberra, he by deception dishonestly obtained property, namely $80,000 belonging to Catherall Pty Limited, with the intention of permanently depriving Catherall Pty Limited of that property.
(b)(Count 2) That between 18 December 2013 and 16 January 2016 at Canberra, he by deception dishonestly obtained property, namely $50,000 belonging to Catherall Pty Limited, with the intention of permanently depriving Catherall Pty Limited of that property.
(c)(Count 4) That between 1 May 2014 and 28 May 2014 at Canberra, he by deception dishonestly obtained property, namely $50,000 belonging to Catherall Pty Limited, with the intention of permanently depriving Catherall Pty Limited of that property.
(d)(Count 5) That between 11 June 2014 and 14 June 2014 at Canberra, he by deception dishonestly obtained property, namely $15,000 belonging to Catherall Pty Limited, with the intention of permanently depriving Catherall Pty Limited of that property.
(e)(Count 6) That between 4 March 2014 and 8 August 2014 at Canberra, he attempted to commit the offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception from…
Continue reading R v Fischetti (No 5)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213
- Case
- [2016] ACTSC 213
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, the nature and circumstances of the crimes, and the respondent's criminal history. The court had to consider the gravity of the offences, the respondent's culpability, and the need for deterrence and retribution, while also taking into account the possibility of rehabilitation.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the evidence and submissions presented. It considered the cumulative impact of the offences, the respondent's manipulative behaviour, and his prior criminal history, which included multiple convictions for similar deception-based offences. The court found that the respondent's actions demonstrated a pattern of dishonest conduct and a disregard for the rights of others. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the respondent's potential for rehabilitation.
The court ordered the respondent to serve a total effective prison term, with specific details regarding the sentences for each offence outlined in the final orders. The court also noted that the sentences would run concurrently, taking into account the respondent's previous sentences to prevent excessive punishment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [86]-[99]
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.