Legal Research
Cases
R v Renzella

R v Renzella

Case [1999] VSCA 85 20 May 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal

About
Contact
Copyright & Usage
Privacy
Disclaimers
Feedback
Help

All Databases
Cases & Legislation
Journals & Scholarship
Law Reform
Treaties
Libraries
Communities
LawCite

Australia
CTH
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
New Zealand

Specific Year
Any

R v Renzella [1999] VSCA 85 (20 May 1999)

Last Updated: 15 June 1999

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL	Not Restricted

No. 199 of 1998

THE QUEEN

RICHARD RENZELLA

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, BATT and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May, 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May, 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 85

---Criminal law - Sentence - Non-parole period - Manifestly excessive - Applicant sentenced by different courts for separate offences - Total effective sentence - Appropriate head sentence for each offence - Cumulation - Concurrency.---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R.A. Elston	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr N. Papas	Stary & George

BROOKING, J.A.:

Chernov, J.A. will deliver the first judgment.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now aged 54, pleaded guilty in the County Court on 7 August 1998 to a charge of conspiracy to cheat and defraud (the first offence). He had been sentenced earlier (the first sentence) on 12 February 1997 in relation to unrelated charges, to six years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months. On 14 August 1998 he was sentenced (the second sentence) in relation to the first offence to two years' imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the first sentence. Thus, the total of the two sentences amounted to eight years and three months' imprisonment. His Honour also effectively extended, in accordance with s.14 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the non-parole period that was fixed by the first sentence, to four years and nine months.
By notice dated 26 August 1998, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the second sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
The circumstances which culminated in the sentence of 14 August 1998 are a little complicated and I shall set them out below in chronological order.
On 11 December 1992, the applicant was charged with theft of a number of motor vehicles and was released on bail. Those charges were later subsumed in the first count. It was alleged that between 17 September 1991 and 27 November 1992, the applicant and others, including John Gerald Sven Bantjes ("Bantjes"), conspired together and with others to cheat and defraud by falsely representing that a company which traded as Southern Commercials, had full title to all motor vehicles which it offered for sale and that it was able to pass good title to anyone who ordered or…

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 Renzella

Details

AGLC: R v Renzella [1999] VSCA 85
Case: [1999] VSCA 85
Decision Date: 20 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Renzella, the applicant, convicted for multiple criminal offences, appealed against his sentence, contending that the cumulative effect of his sentences was manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the non-parole periods imposed were appropriate in light of the totality of the applicant's offending and whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed for the separate offences were so severe that they constituted an unjustifiable punishment, thus being manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of cumulation and concurrency in sentencing, particularly in the context of multiple offences committed by the same individual. The court examined whether the sentences should run concurrently to prevent an overall sentence that is excessively punitive.

The High Court held that the non-parole periods imposed for the applicant's sentences were not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court recognised the importance of individualising sentences to fit the circumstances of each offence while also considering the cumulative effect on the total punishment. The court concluded that the sentences were appropriate and should run concurrently, ensuring that the overall punishment did not exceed what was necessary or just in the circumstances.

Orders