R -v- OTTOBRINO [1999] WASCA 207
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 207 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 15/10/1999 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:21/1999 | 14 JULY 1999 | |
| Coram: | IPP J WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 14/07/99 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN CATERINA OTTOBRINO NATALIE STELLITANO |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Crown appeal Stealing Breach of trust Large number of offences Two women with young children imprisoned Whether aggregate terms sufficient Serious offences Unusual circumstances Whether other offenders involved Offenders close to release from prison |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561 Burns (1994) 71 A Crim R 450 Cransen v The King(1936) 55 CLR 508 DPP v Carter (1998) 1 VR 601 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Greer v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960173; 1 April 1996 Harris v The Queen (1954) 90 CLR 652 Kovac v The Queen (1977) 15 ALR 637 Lewis-Harrison v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930291; 27 May 1993 Malvaso v The Queen(1989) 168 CLR 227 Mann v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950338; 14 June 1995 R v Clark [1996] 2 VR 520 R v Hicks, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970164; 9 April 1997 R v Janine Wilson, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7325; 20 October 1998 R v Jeffree, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 980150; 6 April 1998 R v O'Rourke [1997] 1 VR 246 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Sivandiran, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960154; 22 March 1996 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Wilkinson (1996) 85 A Crim R 353 Stockbridge v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6798; 23 July 1987 Barrick v R (1985) 81 Cr App R 78 Bessell v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Birch v R (1993) 69 A Crim R 181 H (1994) 81 A Crim R 88 R v Catto (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Leucus (1995) 78 A Crim R 40 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Sanders, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 5121; 2 November 1983 R v Wilson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970067; 26 February 1997 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- OTTOBRINO [1999] WASCA 207 CORAM : IPP J
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Appellant
AND
CATERINA OTTOBRINO
- Respondent
- Appellant
AND
NATALIE STELLITANO
- Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Crown appeal - Stealing - Breach of trust…
Continue reading R v Ottobrino
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Ottobrino [1999] WASCA 207
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Ottobrino, the respondent appealed against his sentence, following his conviction for multiple counts of stealing and breaching trust. The case was heard in the appellate court. The appellant, Ottobrino, was convicted of stealing from two women who had young children, and breaching their trust by taking advantage of his position. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court was sufficient, given the large number of offences and the vulnerable victims. The court also needed to consider whether there were any unusual circumstances that warranted a different approach to sentencing.
The court determined that the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the number of offences and the vulnerable victims involved. The court found that the appellant's actions were premeditated and exploitative, demonstrating a clear breach of trust. While acknowledging that other offenders might have been involved, the court held that this did not alter the fact that the appellant was responsible for his own crimes. The court also considered the appellant's proximity to release from prison at the time of sentencing, but ultimately found that this did not warrant a different approach to sentencing.
The appeals were dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the impact of the crimes on the victims, as well as the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court also noted that the appellant's proximity to release from prison did not alter the fact that he was responsible for his crimes and deserved punishment accordingly. The final orders of the court were that the appeals were dismissed and the original sentence was upheld.
The court determined that the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the number of offences and the vulnerable victims involved. The court found that the appellant's actions were premeditated and exploitative, demonstrating a clear breach of trust. While acknowledging that other offenders might have been involved, the court held that this did not alter the fact that the appellant was responsible for his own crimes. The court also considered the appellant's proximity to release from prison at the time of sentencing, but ultimately found that this did not warrant a different approach to sentencing.
The appeals were dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the impact of the crimes on the victims, as well as the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court also noted that the appellant's proximity to release from prison did not alter the fact that he was responsible for his crimes and deserved punishment accordingly. The final orders of the court were that the appeals were dismissed and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals dismissed
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.