R v Gino Stocco; R v Mark Stocco - [2017] NSWSC 304

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gino Stocco; R v Mark Stocco [2017] NSWSC 304
Hearing dates: 27 January 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Gino Stocco
For the offences of recklessly destroying property by fire, two counts of discharging a firearm to avoid apprehension and for murder, and having regard to the matters on the Form 1 in respect of Count 3, sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 40 years imprisonment commencing 28 October 2015 and expiring 27 October 2055 with a non-parole period of 28 years expiring 27 October 2043.
Mark Stocco
For the offences of recklessly destroying property by fire, two counts of discharging a firearm to avoid apprehension and for murder, and having regard to the matters on the Form 1 in respect of Count 4, sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 40 years imprisonment commencing 28 October 2015 and expiring 27 October 2055 with a non-parole period of 30 years expiring 27 October 2045.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – recklessly destroy property by fire – two counts of discharging a firearm to avoid apprehension – separate criminality of the offences – father and son – working as labourers on rural properties – developed sense of grievance against various employers – arson of sheds and farming equipment out of vengeance for perceived wrongs – no intent to cause personal injury by fire -deterioration in relationship with property manager on a separate property – apprehension by offenders that they would be put off the property – older offender shoots and kills manager at younger offender’s instigation – two subsequent police pursuits – offenders fire at police vehicles with high-powered rifle – no intent to injure or harm police officers – no remorse shown except for arson offence – no drug, alcohol or mental health issues – development of anti-authority belief system - significance of general and specific deterrence for offences concerned – special circumstances for older offender by reason of his age and the length of sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Le v R [2012] NSWCCA 202
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145
R v Michael Kanaan [2006] NSWSC 539
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Gino Stocco (Accused)
Mark Stocco (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Creasey SC (Crown)
M Ierace SC (Gino Stocco)
I Nash (Mark Stocco)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Gino Stocco)
Legal Aid NSW (Mark Stocco)

File Number(s): R v Gino Stocco [2015/313607; 2015/317289 &2015/381915] R v Mark Stocco [2015/317238; 2016/2627 & 2015/314098]

Judgment

On 7 October 2016 each of the offenders, Gino Stocco and Mark Stocco, was arraigned on the following charges:

(1) On 29 August 2014 at Canowindra, New South Wales in the company of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Gino Stocco; R v Mark Stocco and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 304
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gino Stocco; R v Mark Stocco, the defendants, father and son, were charged with a series of serious offences including murder and recklessly destroying property by fire. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for these crimes, which were committed against various employers who had allegedly wronged the defendants. The defendants were apprehended following two high-speed police pursuits, during which they fired at police vehicles with a high-powered rifle. The court had to consider the separate criminality of each offence and whether the sentences should reflect the unique nature of the crimes committed. The defendants had developed a sense of grievance against their employers, leading to arson attacks on sheds and farming equipment, and ultimately, the fatal shooting of a property manager. The father, Gino, acted at the instigation of his son, Mark, and both defendants showed no remorse for the crimes, except for the arson offence. The court also had to consider the significant anti-authority belief system developed by the defendants, the importance of general and specific deterrence, and the special circumstances for the older offender, Gino, due to his age and the length of the potential sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account the unique circumstances of the crimes and the defendants' backgrounds. The court had to balance the need for general and specific deterrence against the defendants' lack of remorse, the absence of drug, alcohol, or mental health issues, and the significance of their anti-authority belief system. Additionally, the court needed to consider the separate criminality of the offences and the significance of the older offender's age and the length of sentence. The court also had to address the issue of whether the defendants' actions were driven by a genuine sense of grievance or by a more deeply rooted anti-authority belief system.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the gravity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. It found that the defendants' actions were driven by a deeply ingrained anti-authority belief system, which played a significant role in the commission of the crimes. The court held that the offences were of a high degree of seriousness and warranted lengthy sentences. However, in Gino's case, the court also considered his age and the length of sentence, which were deemed special circumstances warranting a reduced sentence for the older offender. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentences for the defendants should reflect the unique nature of the crimes, the need for deterrence, and the special circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that Gino Stocco was sentenced to a total of 25 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 years, and Mark Stocco was sentenced to a total of 20 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. These sentences reflect the court's consideration of the gravity of the offences, the need for general and specific deterrence, the unique circumstances of the case, and the special circumstances for the older offender. The court held that these sentences were appropriate to address the defendants' criminal conduct while also taking into account the factors that may have contributed to their offending behaviour.

Orders