R v Rizzo - [2009] VSC 17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1709 of 2008

THE QUEEN

BARTHOLOMEW RIZZO

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 February 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rizzo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 17

---

Plea of guilty, trafficking in a drug of dependence (large commercial quantity), trafficking in a drug of dependence (commercial quantity), knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime (4.2 million). Large scale syndicate, extended period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C Barbagello	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Croucher	Melasseca & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Bartholomew Rizzo you have pleaded guilty to four counts, being three of trafficking, and one of dealing with proceeds of crime. You were born on 6 September 1978. You are currently 30 years of age. You were aged between 27 to 28 years of age at the time of the commission of the offences. You have a relevant prior conviction.

On 14 May 2003 at the Magistrates’ Court at Ringwood you were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

·Possessing an unregistered handgun without a licence,
·Possessing a drug of dependence,
·Using a false document to prejudice another and
·Driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be wholly suspended for a period of two years, and your drivers licence was suspended for one month.

The offences to which you have pleaded guilty and the maximum penalties applicable to each offence are:

Count 1: Trafficking large commercial quantity methylamphetamine at Melbourne (between January 1, 2006 and June 5, 2007) – life imprisonment and 5000 Penalty units.
Count 2: Trafficking commercial quantity cocaine at Melbourne (between January 1, 2006 and June 5, 2007) – 25 years imprisonment.
Count 3: Dealing with approximately $4.2 million knowing it was proceeds of crime at Melbourne (between July 5, 2006 and June 6, 2007) – 15 years imprisonment.
Count 4: Trafficking commercial quantity of MDMA at Melbourne (between May 3, 2007 and June 5, 2007) – 25 years imprisonment.

The Crown have presented a lengthy opening which I have made exhibit 1 and I do not intend to repeat all of the material contained in that document, but I will refer to some of the salient parts. The structure in which this organisation, referred to as “the company”, actually operated, demonstrated that the alleged major beneficiary of this organisation was “A”. He was, according to the material presented, including the statements of your co-offender, Joseph Mansour, clearly the man in charge and the person who dictated how this organisation worked.

I will not use the word alleged in respect of all of the other men who are accused and may be contesting the charges, I am accepting this material for the purposes of sentencing you and not making judgments in respect of those other persons.

You, together with Joseph Mansour, were what were described by the…

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 Rizzo

Details

AGLC: R v Rizzo [2009] VSC 17
Case: [2009] VSC 17
Decision Date: 9 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rizzo, the respondent was charged with various drug-related offences under Australian law, including trafficking in a drug of dependence in large commercial and commercial quantities, as well as knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime amounting to $4.2 million. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred around the respondent's involvement in a large-scale drug trafficking syndicate and the length of time over which these activities had occurred.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's involvement in the syndicate and the duration of the trafficking activities justified an aggravated sentence under the relevant legislation, and whether the respondent's guilty plea should be considered a mitigating factor. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the significant proceeds of crime and the impact of the offences on the community.

The court found that the respondent's involvement in the drug trafficking syndicate was extensive, both in terms of the quantity of drugs involved and the duration of the activities. The court held that the aggravating factors, including the large-scale nature of the operation and the extended period over which it occurred, outweighed the mitigating factor of the respondent's guilty plea. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter and protect the community from drug-related crime. The court also ordered that the respondent forfeit the proceeds of crime, reflecting the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders