R v Lidonnici - [2007] VSC 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1532 of 2006

THE QUEEN

DANIEL PAUL LIDONNICI

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 November 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 January 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lidonnici
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 3

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Unlawful imprisonment – Recklessly causing serious injury – Knowingly resisting police – Possession of drugs of dependence – Plea of guilty –Acute paranoid delusions caused by voluntary drug use – Youthful offender – No prior convictions – Genuine remorse – No long term injuries – Forgiveness by primary victim – Low risk of re-offending – Community-based order and fines

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Sheales	Clarebrough Pica

HER HONOUR:

Daniel Paul Lidonnici, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Count 1 possession of a drug of dependence, namely MDMA

Count 2 possession of a drug of dependence, namely ketamine

Count 3 possession of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine

Count 4 possession of a drug of dependence, namely cannabis L

Count 5 unlawfully imprisoning Hayley Faye di Cecco and detaining her against her will

Count 6 unlawfully imprisoning Ayla Ramsay and detaining her against her will

Count 7 recklessly causing serious injury to Hayley Faye di Cecco

Count 8 knowingly resisting Mark Dekleyn, a member of the police force, in the execution of his duty

Count 9 knowingly resisting Alan Howden, a member of the police force, in the execution of his duty.

The offences were all committed between Friday 21 and Sunday 23 October 2005. At that time, you and the principal victim, Hayley di Cecco, had been in a relationship for a few months and were effectively living together. You spent a large part of that weekend together, including attending a number of dance clubs, along with a group of mutual friends. Over the course of the weekend, you went on what can only be described as a drug-taking binge, consuming substantial quantities of MDMA (“ecstasy”), ketamine, methylamphetamine (“ice”) and cannabis (counts 1 to 4). You had not slept since Friday.

Late Sunday afternoon, Hayley wanted to collect her bag from a friend’s flat in St Kilda, where she had left it earlier. You drove her there to collect it, having arranged to then meet up with the rest of the group at another friend’s house in Heidelberg. On the way to St Kilda, you picked up a mutual friend, Ayla Ramsay, to give her a lift to Heidelberg.

When you arrived at St Kilda, the three of you entered the flat, using your friend’s keys. Once inside, you became increasingly irrational and started to stare blankly at walls. Hayley became frustrated with your behaviour and told you to snap out of it. You then locked the door of the flat, preventing the two girls from leaving.

They tried to calm you…

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 Lidonnici

Details

AGLC: R v Lidonnici [2007] VSC 3
Case: [2007] VSC 3
Decision Date: 24 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Lidonnici, the respondent pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges, including unlawfully imprisoning a person, recklessly causing serious injury, knowingly resisting police, and possessing drugs of dependence. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of a state. The respondent, a young individual with no prior criminal history, committed these offences while under the influence of drugs and suffering from acute paranoid delusions. The primary victim forgave the respondent, and the respondent displayed genuine remorse.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the respondent's age, the absence of prior convictions, and the impact of drug-induced mental health issues. The court also had to consider the forgiveness of the primary victim and the low risk of re-offending by the respondent.

The court considered the mitigating factors of the respondent's young age, lack of prior convictions, and genuine remorse. The court also took into account the impact of drug-induced mental health issues on the respondent's actions. The court found that the primary victim's forgiveness and the low risk of re-offending were significant factors in favour of a lenient sentence. The court concluded that a community-based order combined with fines would be an appropriate sentence, given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be subject to a community-based order for a specified period and be required to pay fines totalling a certain amount. The court's decision reflected the need to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the respondent's age, lack of prior convictions, and genuine remorse, as well as the forgiveness of the primary victim.

Orders