R v Latina - [2007] VSCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 38 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
ROBERTO LATINA

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, EAMES JA and KELLAM AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	15 February and 24 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 April 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 78

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) – Possession of unregistered firearms – Receiving stolen goods – Offences committed while on bail – Offender involved in two subsequent episodes of serious drug offences – Significant prior convictions – Totality – Delay – Offender aged 42 at time of sentence – Total effective sentence of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, 8 months concurrent with sentence then undergoing, new non-parole period of 4 years – Held not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D Grace, QC	Victor C Andreou, Solicitor

MAXWELL P:

I will invite Eames JA to deliver the first judgment.

EAMES JA:

The applicant, Roberto Latina, applies for leave to appeal against sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Barnett in the County Court on 13 February 2006. Before detailing the offences and sentences imposed on that occasion, it is necessary to give some background to the applicant's history of drug-related offences and of sentences that preceded those imposed by Judge Barnett. As will emerge, Judge Barnett was the last of three County Court judges who imposed sentences on the applicant for discrete episodes of offending conduct that occurred broadly over the same period in recent years.

The sole ground of appeal complains that when regard is had to the sentences imposed on all three occasions, that imposed on the last occasion by Judge Barnett, on which the primary offence was trafficking in methylamphetamine, can be seen to have offended the principle of totality. When reciting the history of the applicant's recent drug offences, it is to be kept in mind that the methylamphetamine trafficking on this last occasion occurred between May and August 2003.

At the time of sentencing by Judge Barnett on 14 February 2006, the applicant was aged 42 years. He admitted 17 prior convictions from seven court appearances between March 1983 and June 1996. Many of them related to drug offences. On 18 July 1989, he was released on a bond for possession of cannabis.

On 28 October 1991, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months for an offence of trafficking cocaine. On 15 December 1995, he was sentenced with respect to trafficking and possession of diacetylmorphine and received a total effective sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months' imprisonment. He was released in 1999. Thereafter, his offending and sentencing for offences is relevant, specifically, to the present complaint about totality, with respect to the sentence imposed by Judge Barnett.

On 20 September 2002 Latina was arrested…

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 Latina

Details

AGLC: R v Latina [2007] VSCA 78
Case: [2007] VSCA 78
Decision Date: 24 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Latina, the defendant was convicted of trafficking methylamphetamine, possessing unregistered firearms, and receiving stolen goods. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence handed down by the lower court. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the sentence given the nature and gravity of the offences, the defendant's prior criminal history, and the totality principle, which seeks to avoid excessive cumulative sentences for multiple related offences.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances. The defendant had a significant history of prior convictions and committed these offences while on bail for another serious drug offence. The court also noted the defendant’s involvement in two subsequent episodes of serious drug offences. Despite these aggravating factors, the court found that the sentence of 5 years and 3 months, with 8 months to run concurrently with the defendant's current sentence, was not manifestly excessive. The new non-parole period of 4 years was deemed appropriate given the defendant’s criminal conduct and history.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding it neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the gravity of the offences. The court considered the totality of the defendant's criminal conduct, his prior history, and the delay in sentencing, while also acknowledging the defendant’s age at the time of sentencing. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and totality in criminal sentencing.

Orders