R v Pecotic - [2017] VSC 330

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0021

THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER PECOTIC	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	30 January, 24 & 27 March 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 June 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Pecotic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 330

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed robbery – Attempted armed robbery – Reckless conduct endangering life – Guilty plea – Long history of criminal offending – Youth at the time of offending – Willingness to facilitate the course of justice – Substantially improved prospects of rehabilitation – Genuine remorse – Serious mental health concerns – Sentenced to aggregate of 18 years and two months with minimum of 14 years and two months – 1832 days pre-sentence detention.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Dr M. Fitzgerald on Day 1 The Accused was thereafter unrepresented	Dr Martine Marich & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

In January 2015, you wrote to Detective Inspector Ashworth and set out your involvement in a series of armed robberies carried out between 30 May 1988 and 10 December 1991. I shall refer to this as the historical offending. You followed that letter with an affidavit, which in solemn circumstances confirmed the contents of the letter. Subsequently in August and September, you participated in records of interview.

The upshot of this activity is that you have pleaded guilty before me to eight charges of armed robbery or attempted armed robbery and one charge of recklessly endangering life. I shall set out the brief circumstances of this very serious offending and then I shall turn to the unusual course that you have taken.

Circumstances of offending

The facts giving rise to this historical offending can be summarised relatively briefly.

Charge 1: Armed robbery

In company with two other unidentified offenders, on 30 May 1988 you attended Ken Kim’s Sports Store in Altona. You carried with you an imitation pistol, menaced a store attendant and made off with six firearms (mostly shotguns). You left the scene in a waiting vehicle.

Charge 2: Armed Robbery

On 31 May 1988, you entered the State Savings Bank of Victoria in East Keilor. You carried with you a sawn-off shotgun, threatened bank tellers and made off with $21,668.00. In those far off days there were 12 staff in the bank serving two customers.

Charge 3: Armed Robbery

On 17 June 1988, with an unidentified co-offender, you attended the Moonee Ponds TAB. You were wearing overalls and balaclavas. You confronted the manager and one of you demanded ‘all the big notes’. Your co-accused discharged a shot into the ceiling of the building and you both fled in a stolen vehicle. The amount stolen was $5,326.00. In addition to staff there was a customer present.

Charge 4: Attempted Armed Robbery

On 30 June 1988, with two unidentified co-offenders, you attempted to enter the Commonwealth…

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 Pecotic

Details

AGLC: R v Pecotic [2017] VSC 330
Case: [2017] VSC 330
Decision Date: 14 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pecotic involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and reckless conduct endangering life. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, who had a long history of criminal offending, committed the offences while he was a youth. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various mitigating and aggravating factors, including his willingness to facilitate the course of justice, his prospects of rehabilitation, his genuine remorse, and his serious mental health concerns.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant’s age at the time of the offending, his willingness to facilitate the course of justice, and the substantial improvement in his prospects of rehabilitation, against the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The court had to balance these considerations in determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant’s pre-sentence detention.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the totality of the defendant’s offending and his history of criminal behaviour, as well as the nature and circumstances of the current offences. The court noted the defendant’s willingness to facilitate the course of justice, his genuine remorse, and the substantial improvement in his prospects of rehabilitation. However, the court also considered the need for general deterrence and the seriousness of the offending. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate of 18 years and two months with a minimum of 14 years and two months, taking into account the 1832 days pre-sentence detention.

Orders