R v Rossi (Sentence) - [2010] VSC 602

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1668 of 2009

THE QUEEN

GIOVANNI ROSSI

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3 December 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rossi (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 602

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally Cause Serious Injury – Victim doused in diesel and set alight with blowtorch – Absence of previous violent convictions – Connection between psychological condition and offending – Impact of medical and psychological conditions on time in custody – Prospects for rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Paul D’Arcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Edney	Robert Stary and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Giovanni Rossi, on 29 October 2010 you were found guilty by a jury of intentionally causing serious injury to Peter D’Amore on 16 April 2009. You are now to be sentenced for that offence. The jury found you not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of attempted defensive homicide.

You have admitted previous convictions through your counsel and I will return to those shortly. The offence of intentionally causing serious injury carries a maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment.

This offence of which the jury found you guilty arises from an incident which occurred on 16 April 2009 involving Peter D’Amore who is the victim of this crime. A person named Kim Emery, who was also charged in relation to these matters, and Mr D’Amore had been in a relationship and had lived together for about two years with her younger daughter Aleishia. Shortly prior to the incident on 16 April 2009, however, she formed a relationship with you, having moved out of the premises she lived in with Mr D’Amore and moving to your premises at Albert Street Reservoir. Ms Emery’s daughter remained with Mr D’Amore.

The evidence indicated that the separation between Ms Emery and Mr D’Amore was hostile, with arguments about property that she had left at Mr D’Amore’s house and also about where her daughter Aleishia would live. Two days prior to the incident which gave rise to this offence, Mr D’Amore had apparently taken a mattress which had belonged to Ms Emery, to your premises and left it in the driveway.

On 16 April 2009 during the afternoon, Mr D’Amore went to your premises for the purpose of discussing with Ms Emery the collection of her belongings from his premises. The discussions became an argument which referred back to the incident involving the mattress. There was then a series of incidents including you and a friend of yours returning the mattress and other items to Mr D’Amore’s premises after which Mr D’Amore apparently took fragile items to your house and smashed them on the driveway. The situation was becoming more and more angry.

In your evidence you said there had been a series of harassing phone calls from Mr D’Amore and you wanted something done…

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 Rossi (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Rossi (Sentence) [2010] VSC 602
Case: [2010] VSC 602
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rossi, the appellant was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a victim. The incident involved the victim being doused in diesel and set alight with a blowtorch. The case reached the court for the determination of an appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues before the court were to assess the severity of the offence, consider the appellant’s lack of prior violent convictions, examine the connection between the appellant's psychological condition and the offending behaviour, and evaluate the impact of the appellant's medical and psychological conditions on the time already spent in custody. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the prospects for the appellant's rehabilitation.

The court meticulously reviewed the circumstances of the offence, noting the extreme violence and premeditation involved. It acknowledged the absence of prior convictions, which typically mitigates sentencing severity. However, the court also gave significant weight to the appellant's psychological condition, which was found to be connected to the offending behaviour. This connection suggested a need for treatment rather than mere punishment. The court further considered the appellant's time already spent in custody and its impact on their medical and psychological well-being. The prospects for rehabilitation were assessed based on the appellant's potential to benefit from therapeutic interventions and their willingness to engage in rehabilitation programs.

In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality. It concluded that while the offence was severe, the appellant's psychological condition and the absence of prior convictions warranted a sentence that included an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court ultimately determined that a sentence involving imprisonment with a focus on rehabilitation would be appropriate. The sentence imposed reflected these considerations, ensuring it was proportionate to the offence while providing the appellant with the best chance for future rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific conditions aimed at facilitating their rehabilitation, including access to medical and psychological treatment programs. The sentence was structured to ensure that the appellant could address their underlying psychological issues, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending and promoting their reintegration into society.

Orders