The offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1½ years with a head sentence of 3 years.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Ongoing drug supply
Category:
Sentence
Parties:
The Crown Frank Scognamiglio
Representation:
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Legal Aid Commission – The Offender
File Number(s):
2017/91229
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: In early 2017 police ran an operation in the Redfern area in an attempt to deal with the problems of drug supply. They had some success. I am to sentence a number of people who were arrested as a result of the police activities. Mr Scognamiglio is the second such person.
As part of the police operation they arranged for registered sources to purchase drugs from people willing and able to supply them. Mr Scognamiglio was one of them. He supplied drugs on four occasions to two of the registered sources. He supplied $900 worth of methylamphetamine for which Mr Scognamiglio got a small amount of drugs as a reward for facilitating the supply of that drug, the primary supplier being a Mr Lee. Then he supplied a further $900 worth of methylamphetamine; $1,750 worth of methylamphetamine; and finally, $1,400 worth of methylamphetamine for which the evidence reveals Mr Scognamiglio was paid $100. The quantities he supplied were significant, he receiving a total of $4,950 for having done so.
As I mentioned when sentencing another man today, Mr Lee, it is fortunate these drugs were not disseminated into the community given the harm that drug use causes. But, of course, Mr Scognamiglio was not to know that. As far as he was concerned he was supplying drugs to users who would use them, or on‑supply them. As far as he knew people were going to be harmed by his activities. Belatedly he recognises that he could have even killed someone through what he did.
Mr Scognamiglio has a criminal history, mainly in Queensland, involving offences which include supplying a prohibited plant and producing dangerous drugs. He was brought up in Queensland. He is the third of four children born to Italian migrants. His father worked as a crane operator. He died early unfortunately, aged only 55 years. There was no drug use at home, no domestic violence or criminality. He was well brought up.
The one exception to that description concerned the influence of his older brother. He developed a heroin dependency and later it was he who introduced Mr Scognamiglio to drugs. That was Mr Scognamiglio’s downfall. Up until then he had been doing well. He was working as a spray painter but drugs got in the way. He eventually stopped work and has not worked since he was in his 30s, he now being in his late 50s. He has lost contact with…
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 Scognamiglio
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Scognamiglio [2018] NSWDC 85
Case
[2018] NSWDC 85
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Scognamiglio addressed a criminal matter concerning the sentencing of the defendant, Scognamiglio, who was convicted of ongoing drug supply. The defendant had been found guilty of multiple counts related to the supply of dangerous drugs, indicating a persistent involvement in illegal activities. The nature of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history necessitated a careful consideration of the appropriate sentence to ensure public safety and deterrence.
The legal issues central to this case revolved around determining the severity and structure of the sentence. The court needed to balance the need for punishment with considerations of rehabilitation, taking into account the defendant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the potential impact of the sentence on the defendant's future. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate length of the non-parole period and the total head sentence to achieve these objectives.
The court, after thorough deliberation, concluded that a sentence consisting of imprisonment was warranted. It was determined that a non-parole period of 1½ years was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the need for specific deterrence. The total head sentence was set at 3 years, allowing for a balanced approach that also considered the possibility of rehabilitation. This sentence structure was deemed suitable to address the public safety concerns while providing an opportunity for the defendant to reform.
The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1½ years and a head sentence of 3 years.
Orders
Orders of the court
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1½ years with a head sentence of 3 years.