Legal Research
Cases
R v Robazzini

R v Robazzini

Case [2010] VSCA 8 12 February 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 656 of 2008

THE QUEEN
	v
TIZIANO GINO ROBAZZINI

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN and NEAVE JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	2 February 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12 February 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 8
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Robazzini (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howard, 8 May 2008)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – False imprisonment, causing injury intentionally and making a threat to kill – Adequate weight given to guilty plea – Whether sufficient weight given to appellant’s mental condition – Lack of sufficient evidence to link the appellant’s personality disorder to the offences – Appellant’s consumption of drugs and alcohol treated as an aggravating feature – Appellant aware of effects of consuming different drug cocktails – Total effective sentence five years and six months not manifestly excessive.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S Cooper	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr P J Doyle	Patrick W Dwyer

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Neave JA, for the reasons her Honour has stated, that the appeal should be dismissed.

NEAVE JA:

On 6 May 2008 the appellant, Tiziano Gino Robazzini, pleaded guilty to one count of false imprisonment, three counts of causing injury intentionally and one count of making a threat to kill.[1] After hearing a plea in mitigation of sentence, the learned sentencing judge sentenced him on 8 May 2008 as follows:

[1]The Crown withdrew the four other counts on the presentment as part of the negotiated plea.

Count

Offence

Term

Cumulation

1

False imprisonment

12 months’ imprisonment

3 months

2

Causing injury intentionally

18 months’ imprisonment

9 months

5

Causing injury intentionally

18 months’ imprisonment

9 months

7

Causing injury intentionally

18 months’ imprisonment

9 months

9

Making a threat to kill

3 years’ imprisonment

Base sentence

The orders for cumulation made by his Honour resulted in a total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of 4 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant now appeals against that sentence.

Circumstances of the offending[2] and the offender

[2]The following facts are taken largely from the Crown opening, which was admitted save for allegations that the appellant assaulted the victim on two occasions in 2005.

The appellant had known the victim for approximately 30 years prior to committing the offences, which occurred on 30 and 31 May 2007. About a week earlier, on 23 May 2007, the appellant was sentenced by a County Court Judge to 18 months’ imprisonment on counts of falsely imprisoning and intentionally causing injury to another woman in 2006 (‘2006 offences’). As a consequence of that sentence being suspended for a period of 2 years, he was released from prison.

While on remand for the 2006 offences, the appellant remained in contact with the victim in this case. She came to Melbourne on the day of the appellant’s release, stayed with him overnight and took him to her home in Morwell.…

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 Robazzini

Details

AGLC: R v Robazzini [2010] VSCA 8
Case: [2010] VSCA 8
Decision Date: 12 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robazzini, the appellant stood accused of various serious offences, including false imprisonment, causing injury intentionally, and making a threat to kill. The case was heard in the court of appeal where the primary issue was whether the trial judge had given sufficient consideration to the appellant's mental health and the adequacy of the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that his mental condition and drug consumption should have been given more weight by the trial judge in determining the sentence.

The court was required to assess whether the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's guilty plea, his mental health, and the extent to which his drug consumption and personality disorder influenced his actions. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the sentence of five years and six months was manifestly excessive, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court found that while the trial judge had acknowledged the appellant's guilty plea and his mental health issues, the weight given to these factors was not sufficient. However, the court determined that the appellant's consumption of drugs and alcohol was correctly treated as an aggravating feature. Despite the appellant's personality disorder, there was insufficient evidence to directly link it to the commission of the offences. The court concluded that the total effective sentence of five years and six months was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all the circumstances and the appellant's awareness of the effects of consuming different drug cocktails.

Orders