R v Galea - [2001] VSCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 290 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
MARK PAUL GALEA

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 July 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 July 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 115

---

Criminal law - sentencing - offences of armed robbery, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice - total sentences of 9 years - sentences to be served concurrent with previous sentences imposed for drug offences - single non-parole period of 6 years fixed - Whether sentences manifestly disparate to sentences imposed upon co-offender - Whether sentences infringe principles of totality - Whether error disclosed by mis-statement of maximum sentence for armed robbery - Whether errors made in cumulation and failure to moderate aspects of general deterrence - appeal dismissed.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan QC with Ms K. Judd	Mr K. Robertson, Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Leanne Warren & Associates

WINNEKE, P.:

On 11 August of last year the appellant, Mark Paul Galea, pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, one count of false imprisonment and one count of intending to pervert the course of justice. The first two offences were committed on 4 July 1997 and the third was committed between 4 September 1997 and 29 September 1997 whilst the appellant was in custody.

At the time when the offences were committed, the appellant was approximately 27 years of age. For a man of that age he had a bad record, having admitted 38 previous convictions (many for acts of dishonesty) from 12 court appearances.

He had been arrested on 3 September 1997 and remanded in custody. The sentencing judge noted that the appellant had remained in custody until 2 July 1998 when he was admitted to bail. He further noted that eight months of that period in custody had been served in relation to other offences so that upon his admission to bail in July of 1998 he had been in custody for these offences for approximately 90 days. However, within 18 days of being released on bail, he committed a series of drug offences for which he was, on 23 May 2000, ultimately sentenced by this Court on a Director's appeal to a total effective sentence of seven and a half years with a non-parole period of five years. The Court of Appeal had made a pre-sentence detention declaration of 664 days, with the result that, as the sentencing judge said, he would have become eligible for parole on the drug offences for which he was sentenced by this Court in September 2003. Section 14 of the Sentencing Act 1991 required the sentencing judge to fix a new non-parole period under the sentences which he was imposing. His Honour noted that the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences for which the appellant had pleaded guilty before him were: as to the armed robbery, 25 years; as…

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 Galea

Details

AGLC: R v Galea [2001] VSCA 115
Case: [2001] VSCA 115
Decision Date: 31 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Galea involved Mark Paul Galea, who had pleaded guilty to armed robbery, false imprisonment, and perverting the course of justice. The sentencing judge imposed a total effective sentence of nine years to be served concurrently with sentences for prior drug offences, with a single non-parole period of six years. The appellant's appeal against the sentences was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the sentences were not manifestly disparate or excessive, nor did they infringe the principles of totality or deterrence. The court also found no error in the mis-statement of the maximum penalty for armed robbery or in the sentencing judge's assessment of the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's lengthy criminal history and lack of cooperation with police justified a harsher sentence compared to his co-offender, who had a negligible criminal history and had confessed early. The court also held that the imposition of a single non-parole period for the concurrent sentences was consistent with the principles of totality and did not amount to an error. The Court rejected the argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive or disparate, noting that the appellant would only serve an additional three years beyond the non-parole period for the drug offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders