R v Pirini - [2011] NSWSC 1395

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pirini [2011] NSWSC 1395
Hearing dates: 4 March 2011
Decision date: 18 March 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Affray: Sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years 2 months. The sentence is to date from 17 June 2009 and expire on 16 August 2011.
Manslaughter: Sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years and a balance of the term of the sentence of 3 years. The sentence is to date from 17 December 2009. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 16 December 2012. The total term will expire on 16 December 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter and affray - melee between rival motorcycle club members at airport - deterrence and denunciation - plea of guilty - favourable subjective case - special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Act 2008
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Pomare Pirini
Representation: Ms N Adams with Ms H Roberts (Crown)
Mr J Stratton SC (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Bannisters Lawyers & Attorneys

File Number(s): 2009/68873 & 2009/148413

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 16 December 2010 the offender, Pomare Pirini, pleaded guilty before Latham J to offences of affray and manslaughter. The offences are against s 93C and ss 18 & 24 respectively of the Crimes Act 1900 and the maximum penalties are imprisonment for 10 years and imprisonment for 25 years.

On 4 March 2011 I heard and received evidence and submissions on sentence before standing the matter over until today.

Facts

The matter concerns events in the Qantas domestic terminal at Sydney Airport on 22 March 2009 when there was conflict between members of two rival motorcycle clubs, the Hells Angels and the Comanchero. The offender has acknowledged that he was criminally concerned in an initial incident near Gate 5 of the terminal which gave rise to the charge of affray and that he was also concerned in a second incident a short time later near the check-in area of the departure hall which resulted in the tragic death of Mr Anthony Zervas.

A statement of agreed facts was tendered before me. I draw what follows from that document.

There had been hostility and enmity between members of the two clubs for some time prior to 22 March 2009. This resulted in various criminal acts being committed, including the firebombing of business premises belonging to the Hells Angels at Brighton; shots being fired into a tattoo parlour owned by a Hells Angels member in Petersham; and the bombing of the Hells Angels clubhouse. The first of those incidents occurred in October 2008 and the others occurred in February 2009.

It is not alleged that the present offender was involved in any of these incidents but it is…

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 Pirini

Details

AGLC: R v Pirini [2011] NSWSC 1395
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1395
Decision Date: 18 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pirini, the defendant was prosecuted for his involvement in a violent altercation at an airport between rival motorcycle club members. The incident resulted in the death of another club member and various charges of affray. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Pirini, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and affray.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the subjective circumstances of the case, and any special circumstances that might warrant a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines. It was necessary to assess the gravity of the offence, the role of Pirini in the incident, and the potential impact of the sentence on both the community and Pirini himself.

The court found that the principles of deterrence and denunciation were particularly relevant given the violent nature of the offence and the involvement of organised motorcycle clubs. However, the court also took into account Pirini's early guilty plea and the favourable subjective circumstances of his case. The court concluded that, while a substantial sentence was warranted, special circumstances, such as Pirini's otherwise unblemished character and his remorse, warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the mitigating factors presented.

The court ordered that Pirini be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while also considering the special circumstances of the case. The exact terms of the sentence were left to the discretion of the sentencing judge, who was directed to take into account all relevant factors, including the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the subjective circumstances of the case, and any special circumstances that might warrant a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines.

Orders