R v Safatli - [2008] VSCA 232

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 235 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
ESAM SAFATLI

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, VINCENT JA and VICKERY AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 November 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 232

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Handling stolen goods – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Obtaining property by deception – Appeal against sentence – Manifestly excessive – Tsiaras and Verdins – Question as to whether excessive weight placed on prior convictions – Question as to whether trial judge erred in approach to remorse and issues of delay – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M A Gamble SC	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Victorian Legal Aid

MAXWELL P:
VINCENT JA:
VICKERY AJA:

The judgment in the Court was delivered by Vincent JA.

Extra Transport Group Pty Ltd is a storage, warehousing and transport company located at Sims Street, West Melbourne. On Saturday 6 August 2005, Extra was storing a number of shipping containers, one of which held plasma television sets, valued at approximately $5000 each. In the early hours of that day, the premises were burgled and that container was broken into. 68 sets were removed and placed into an Isuzu truck owned by Extra.

The truck was then driven to a house in 10 Scarborough Road, Epping occupied by the estranged wife of the appellant. When it arrived at about 3.00am, the boxes containing the sets were unloaded by the appellant, an accomplice, identified as Semir or Sammy, and the appellant’s 14 year-old step-son, who was living at the premises. 65 were placed in the driveway, behind a high corrugated fence, and three in a garden shed with the intention that they were to be retained by the appellant. After the boxes were unloaded, the appellant left with the accomplice in the truck which they subsequently abandoned.

When the company’s staff arrived later that morning, the theft of the truck and the plasma television sets was detected and police were notified. As the vehicle was fitted with a GPS system, it was a relatively simple matter to ascertain its location and the fact that it had stopped at the Scarborough Road house. In due course, the police went to the house, where the 68 boxes were still located.

Initially, when interviewed, the appellant denied any wrongdoing, but later admitted that he had handled the stolen goods and pleaded guilty in the County Court, on 6 August 2007, to the commission of that offence. He also admitted a number of convictions in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne, arising out of appearances on 18 December 2000 and 31 August 2001 for obtaining financial advantage by deception and obtaining property by deception.

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the sentencing judge, on 10 August 2007, imposed a term of imprisonment of three years in respect of which a non-parole period of 21 months…

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 Safatli

Details

AGLC: R v Safatli [2008] VSCA 232
Case: [2008] VSCA 232
Decision Date: 25 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Safatli was convicted of handling stolen goods and obtaining financial advantage by deception. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where Safatli sought to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the trial judge had placed excessive weight on Safatli's prior convictions and whether the judge had erred in his approach to the issues of remorse and delay. The court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as Tsiaras and Verdins, in determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court noted that Safatli's criminal history was extensive, with multiple prior convictions for similar offences. However, the court also noted that Safatli had shown some remorse and had not delayed in bringing the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had not placed excessive weight on Safatli's prior convictions, as the judge had considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in his approach to the issues of remorse and delay, as the judge had properly considered these factors in determining the sentence.

In light of the above, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in determining the sentence. The court also noted that the principles established in previous cases, such as Tsiaras and Verdins, did not require a different outcome in this case.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders