R v Romano

[2008] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Romano [2008] QCA 140
PARTIES:	R v ROMANO, Scott Peter (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 92 of 2008 DC No 3489 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING	District Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	3 June 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2008
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Set aside the sentences imposed below and in lieu thereof order the appellant to serve a term of imprisonment of six months with a parole release date of 10 June 2008 in respect of each offence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where the appellant and others stole a child’s pet goat – where the goat was subsequently decapitated by the appellant as part of a ritualised killing – where the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, parole fixed after four months, in respect of offences relating to the theft and killing of the goat – whether sentence was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where the appellant broke into a community church in order to perform the ritualised killing of a goat – where no damage was done except for blood left on the floor of the church - where sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, parole fixed after four months – whether sentence was manifestly excessive
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1
R v Daley [1999] QCA 329; CA No. 180 of 1999, 20 August 1999, discussed R v Kelly [2006] QCA 467; CA No 175 of 2005, 10 November 2006, applied
COUNSEL:	R A East for the applicant/appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of White J and with the orders she proposes. I will add only the following brief observations. In my view the learned sentencing judge had insufficient regard to the applicant’s role in this sorry episode.

2. The evidence, such as there was, did not contradict the applicant’s version of events. According to him, he did not instigate or participate in the formulation of any plan to take and deal with the goat. Nor did he participate in the maltreatment of the animal until, becoming “distressed that the animal was suffering significant pain”, he killed it.

3. Whilst one may be sceptical about the applicant’s account of events, it…