Legal Research
Cases
R v Romano

R v Romano

Case [2005] NSWCCA 313 6 September 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v Romano [2005] NSWCCA 313

HEARING DATE(S): 31 August 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

6 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Simpson J at 1; Smart AJ at 47; Patten AJ at 48

DECISION:
leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
appeal against severity of sentence - plea of guilty to charge of intimidation - plea of guilty to charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, committed in company - aggravating factors of offences - accumulation of sentences - custodial circumstances - no error shown

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900 s59(2), s562AB
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Part 3 Division 3 s21A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s6

CASES CITED:
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; 118 A Crim R 66
R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76
R v Romano [2004] NSWCCA 380
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
R v Walker [2005] NSWCCA 109
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Adrian Russell Romano - Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/988

COUNSEL:
W Dawe QC - Crown
AP Cook - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
SE O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/21/0131

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Twigg DCJ

2005/988

SIMPSON J
SMART AJ
PATTEN AJ
Tuesday 6 September 2005

REGINA v Adrian Russell ROMANO

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: On 29 November 2004 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of intimidation, and a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, committed in company. By s562AB of the Crimes Act 1900 the applicant was liable, on the intimidation charge, to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years; and by s59(2) of the Crimes Act, he became liable, in respect of the assault offence, to a maximum prison term of seven years.

2 On 17 December 2004 Judge Twigg sentenced the applicant. On the intimidation charge he imposed a fixed term of imprisonment for 12 months, backdated to commence on 28 December 2003, the date the applicant was taken into custody. On the assault charge, he imposed a non-parole period of 18 months, to commence on 28 December 2004 (that is, wholly cumulative upon the earlier sentence) with a balance of term of six months.

3 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of these sentences. In doing so, he contends that explicit error infected the sentencing process. I will come to the specific grounds advanced in support of his application shortly.

facts

4 Both charges arose out of events that occurred on 27 December 2003. A broad outline of the undisputed background follows. The applicant had previously been in a three-year relationship with the victim of the first offence, Ms Elizabeth Lopez. Together they had a child who was then 17 months old. The relationship had come to an end, and Ms Lopez was living with the victim of the second offence, Mr Christopher Thompson. On the date of 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 Romano

Details

AGLC: R v Romano [2005] NSWCCA 313
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 313
Decision Date: 6 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Romano, the defendant was before the court to address an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed following his pleas of guilty to charges of intimidation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, committed in company. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system, which has the ultimate authority to interpret and apply the law in the country.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the offences, and if there were any errors in the court's consideration of the aggravating factors and the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the severity of the offences against the mitigating factors and whether the aggregate sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning in imposing the sentence. It considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances in which the offences were committed, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the trial judge had properly evaluated the aggravating factors and the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court found no error in the judge's assessment and affirmed that the sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes.

Given the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The final orders confirmed the validity of the trial judge's decision regarding the sentence imposed on the defendant for the charges of intimidation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Orders