R v Rachele - [2015] VSC 468

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0122

THE QUEEN

GINO RACHELE

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rachele
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 468

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly causing injury – False imprisonment – Plea of guilty to both charges – Sentencing considerations – Sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of one year with conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC with Ms S. Coombes	Ms V. Anscombe, Acting Solicitors for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P.J. Morrissey SC	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Gino Rachele, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing injury to Mr Alan Dennis Matthews contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 and one charge of false imprisonment of Mr Matthews contrary to common law. The maximum term of imprisonment for recklessly causing injury is five years. The maximum term of imprisonment for false imprisonment is ten years.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 320.

On the evening of Wednesday 29 January 2014, you went to visit Ms Kristy Robb, with whom, at the time, you were in an intimate relationship. She was residing at her mother’s house in Hallam. At approximately 2.45am, both you and Ms Robb attended the home of Mr Matthews at 25 Henry Street, Noble Park. You drove Ms Robb to the Noble Park premises in your motor vehicle.

Mr Matthews was known to you, as Ms Robb had previously sub-let the bungalow at the rear of his premises for approximately a week earlier in January 2014. You had previously assisted Ms Robb to remove her belongings from the bungalow to her mother’s house. Particular items belonging to Ms Robb still remained at the bungalow and were retained by Mr Matthews as collateral for outstanding rental money Mr Matthews alleged was owed by Ms Robb.

Together with Ms Robb, you unlawfully gained entry to the bungalow and began to remove the property belonging to Ms Robb. A number of items were removed and placed at the front of the premises; these items were subsequently loaded into your motor vehicle. It was during this time that Mr Matthews became aware of Ms Robb’s and your presence at his property. Mr Matthews entered the bungalow while you were in what is described as the ‘kids’ room’ looking for various items, including a red school shirt belonging to one of Ms Robb’s children, who was to start school that day. You depose that you heard and saw Ms Robb and Mr Matthews arguing in the vicinity of the lounge room. You then returned to the kids’ room.

Next, you heard yelling, screaming, movement and banging, which you believed may have been the sounds of people struggling with each other and that some of the sounds may have been produced…

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 Rachele

Details

AGLC: R v Rachele [2015] VSC 468
Case: [2015] VSC 468
Decision Date: 3 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rachele involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to charges of recklessly causing injury and false imprisonment. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant, Rachele, was accused of engaging in a physical altercation resulting in injury to a person and holding another individual against their will. The incident occurred in the context of a domestic dispute and led to the charges being laid against Rachele.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences. Key factors included Rachele's guilty plea, the lack of previous convictions, the impact of the offences on the victims, and the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. The court also examined the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), particularly those relating to community protection and the specific nature of the offences committed.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged Rachele's guilty plea and the absence of prior criminal history, which were mitigating factors. However, it also highlighted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the element of false imprisonment which involved a significant breach of personal liberty. The court imposed a Community Correction Order for a period of one year, including conditions designed to ensure accountability, promote rehabilitation, and prevent reoffending. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the potential for the defendant to reintegrate into society in a law-abiding manner.

No further orders were made in the decision.

Orders