R v Sindoni - [2012] VSC 238

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0084 of 2011

THE QUEEN

AARON PLACIDO SINDONI

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 February 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sindoni
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 238

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Recklessly causing serious injury – Retrial – Plea of guilty - Circumstances of offending – Consideration of sentencing after release on successful appeal treated as additional hardship – Good prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Tehan QC	Defteros Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Aaron Placido Sindoni, you have pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury to Cedar Ferry in Brunswick on 28 March 2008. I will set out a brief chronology of the events which bring you here.

You stood your trial for the offence of attempted murder of Cedar Ferry in June 2009 and were found guilty by a jury of intentionally causing serious injury to Mr Ferry. You were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years with a period of six years was fixed before you would be eligible for parole by Bongiorno J, as his Honour then was, on 27 August 2009.

You subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal against your conviction. On 1 July 2011, the Court of Appeal allowed your appeal, quashed the conviction, a re-trial was ordered and you were released from custody on bail.[1] You had then been in custody for 989 days, approximately two years and eight and a half months. All but just less than five months of that period had been served prior to your conviction by the jury.
[1]Aaron Placido Sindoni v R [2011] VSCA 195.

You pleaded guilty before me on 1 February 2012 to recklessly causing serious injury to Mr Ferry.

On 27 March 2008 you attended a buck’s party that took place at Hustlers in Sydney Road, Brunswick along with 16 other men. Later in the night at 12.55am, you temporally exited the venue in order to smoke a cigarette as you had done so throughout the evening. Upon returning inside you were denied entry by the assistant manager of the club. It would seem that you were either struck or pushed to the right side of your face which forced you to take a few steps back towards the gutter.

You tried to make a number of phone calls before you eventually left and hailed a yellow cab that drove you to Sussex Street, North Coburg near where you were living at the time.

You got out of the cab and asked the driver if he could wait. He did so. When you returned you were wearing a light coloured hooded jacket. You previously had been wearing a black shirt and black pants.

You asked the driver to return you to where he had picked you…

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 Sindoni

Details

AGLC: R v Sindoni [2012] VSC 238
Case: [2012] VSC 238
Decision Date: 6 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sindoni, the respondent was convicted for recklessly causing serious injury to a person. The matter was brought before the court on appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal centred around the principle that the circumstances of the offending, along with the consideration of sentencing after release on successful appeal, could be treated as additional hardship in the sentencing process. Additionally, the court was tasked with considering the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the circumstances of the offending and whether the additional hardship of awaiting sentencing following a successful appeal could be properly considered. Furthermore, the court was required to determine if the trial judge gave adequate consideration to the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation, which was a significant mitigating factor in the sentencing process.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the additional hardship faced by the respondent, as well as his prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that these factors should have been given greater weight in the sentencing process. Consequently, the court ordered a retrial to ensure that these considerations were properly addressed. The court emphasised the importance of thoroughly evaluating all relevant factors in the sentencing process, particularly when they pertain to the circumstances of the offending and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court's decision underscored the need for a fair and comprehensive assessment of all mitigating and aggravating factors in criminal sentencing.

Orders