R. v. Ritter - [2000] VSCA 135

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No.221 of 1999

THE QUEEN

PATRICK ELLIS RITTER

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CHARLES and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 July 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 July 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 135

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Trafficking in heroin - Co-offenders - Co-operation with prosecuting authorities - Guilty plea - Parity principle - Effect on sentencing disposition.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.J. Ryan	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr D.C. Dealehr	F.W. Robson & Co.

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

I will ask Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The appellant was brought before the County Court at Melbourne on 8 September 1999 with a co-offender Van Dung Hong on a presentment alleging (count 1) that Hong trafficked heroin between 1 July 1998 and 2 October 1998 and (count 2) that the appellant trafficked heroin and cocaine between 1 July 1998 and 1 October 1998. In both cases the offences were alleged against s.71(1)(b) of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, and the maximum penalty was 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of $100,000.

On 9 September 1999 the appellant pleaded guilty to count 2 and a plea was heard. The appellant admitted 29 previous convictions from 14 court appearances between 9 January 1974 and 3 April 1997. They included convictions for larceny of a motor car, two charges of assaulting police, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, recklessly causing injury, making a false report to police, wilful damage and possession of a drug of dependence. The appellant is now aged 43. During the plea, two witnesses were called on behalf of the appellant, Detective Senior Constable Martin Wilde and James Richard Pollard. On 15 September 1999 the appellant was sentenced on count 2 to be imprisoned for three years, the judge fixing a non-parole period of 18 months.

On 8 September 1999 Van Dung Hong pleaded guilty to count 1 on the same presentment and admitted four previous convictions from two court appearances on 3 March and 21 April 1994. A plea was heard and two witnesses, Than Son Nguyen and Bernard John Healey, were called on his behalf. On 15 September 1999 the judge (who had also sentenced the appellant) sentenced Hong to be imprisoned on count 1 for three years and also fixed a non-parole period of 18 months.

On 14 March 2000 the appellant made application under s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958, and the President granted leave to appeal against sentence.

The appellant now appeals on the grounds, first, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, secondly that the judge erred by failing to take into account or give appropriate weight to relevant circumstances in relation to the conduct of the appellant both prior and subsequent to the commission of the offence, and thirdly that the judge erred in that he failed to apply the principle of parity when sentencing…

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. Ritter

Details

AGLC: R. v. Ritter [2000] VSCA 135
Case: [2000] VSCA 135
Decision Date: 19 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Ritter, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in heroin and faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, along with his co-offenders, was involved in a large-scale heroin trafficking operation. Ritter subsequently decided to cooperate with the prosecuting authorities, leading to the apprehension of his co-conspirators. The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for Ritter, considering his cooperation with the authorities, the principle of parity in sentencing, and the impact of a guilty plea on the overall sentence.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Ritter, weighing his cooperation with the authorities and the principle of parity in sentencing. The principle of parity in sentencing requires that co-offenders who have acted in concert should receive similar sentences. However, the court also had to consider the impact of Ritter's guilty plea, which typically results in a reduced sentence. The court needed to balance these factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence for Ritter.

The court considered the severity of the offence, the role of Ritter in the trafficking operation, and the benefits of his cooperation with the authorities. The court held that Ritter's cooperation with the authorities and his early guilty plea warranted a reduction in his sentence. However, the court also recognised the need to maintain the principle of parity in sentencing with his co-offenders. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years, was appropriate. This sentence reflected Ritter's cooperation, the principle of parity, and the impact of his guilty plea.

The court ordered that Ritter be sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This decision balanced the factors of cooperation, parity in sentencing, and the impact of a guilty plea. The court's decision ensured that Ritter's sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, while also recognising his cooperation with the authorities and the principle of parity in sentencing.

Orders