R v Romano - [2004] NSWCCA 380

CITATION: REGINA v ROMANO [2004] NSWCCA 380

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 2; Adams J at 2; Howie J at 35

DECISION: Grant leave to appeal; As to counts 3 and 6: Quash the sentences of three years and nine months and substitute concurrent fixed terms of two years and nine months to commence on 21 August 2003 and expire on 20 May 2006; As to count 8: Quash the sentence of one year and six months and substitute a fixed term of one year and one month to commence on 21 May 2006 and expire on 20 June 2007; As to count 9: Vary the commencement date of the sentence and non-parole period from 21 May 2008 to 21 November 2005, so that the term expires on 20 November 2014 (the sentence of nine years being unchanged but the commencement date changed to account for the utilitarian discount on the total sentence); quash the non-parole period of six years and three months and substitute a period of five years and nine months, which expires on 20 August 2011; As to counts 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22: Vary the commencement date to 21 May 2007 so that the terms expire on 20 May 2010 (the sentences of three years being unchanged) ; As to counts 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21: Vary the commencement date to 21 May 2005 so that the terms expire on 20 May 2011 (the sentence of six years being unchanged); In the result, the overall sentence to be served by the applellant is eleven years and three months and the earliest date upon which the appellant will be eligible for parole is on the expiry of eight years' imprisonment, namely 20 August 2011.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal - inducing children to participate in child prostitution - attempting to pervert the course of justice - accumulation of charges - significance of utilitarian discount for pleas of guilty where accumulating sentences - significance of prior good character - special circumstances where accumulating sentences - appeal allowed - sentences reduced

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 61D, 61J, 66C(3), 91E, 323
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s44

CASES CITED: R v The Queen (2001) 118 A Crim R 538
Thomas (1993) 65 A Crim R 269

PARTIES :
Regina (Respondent)
v
Vicent Joseph ROMANO (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60158/04

COUNSEL: Mr L Lamprati SC (Crown)
Mr S Odgers SC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
P Safi (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3344

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

60158/04

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
HOWIE J
THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER 2004

REGINA v ROMANO

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: I agree with Adams J.

2 ADAMS J: The applicant, Vincent Joseph Romano, seeks leave to appeal from the sentences imposed on him by the District Court on 4 September 2003. Romano had pleaded guilty to a number of charges arising from…

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 [2004] NSWCCA 380
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 380
Decision Date: 4 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the court was brought forth by the respondent, Romano, against a conviction and sentence handed down by a lower court. Romano was found guilty of several serious charges, including inducing children to engage in child prostitution, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The lower court had sentenced Romano to a significant term of imprisonment, which Romano sought to appeal on the grounds of excessiveness. The case was heard by the court of appeal in Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether the lower court had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. In particular, the court had to consider the principles governing the accumulation of sentences, the significance of the respondent's pleas of guilty, the importance of prior good character, and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing practice. The court was also required to examine whether the lower court had erred in its application of these principles.

The court found that the lower court had not sufficiently taken into account the principles of accumulation of sentences and the respondent's prior good character. The court held that where a defendant has entered into pleas of guilty, a utilitarian discount should be applied to the overall sentence, which had not occurred in this case. Additionally, the court found that the lower court had failed to properly consider the significance of the respondent's prior good character, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The court also identified special circumstances, namely the respondent's early guilty plea, which warranted a reduction in the sentence. Based on these findings, the court determined that the sentence imposed was excessive and allowed the appeal, reducing the sentences accordingly.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the sentences imposed by the lower court, taking into account the principles of accumulation of sentences, the respondent's pleas of guilty, prior good character, and special circumstances. The exact reduction in sentence was not specified in the text, but the court's decision to allow the appeal and reduce the sentences demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

Orders