R v Sindoni - [2009] VSC 365

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1442 of 2008

THE QUEEN

AARON PLACIDO SINDONI

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1–5, 9–12, 14–16 and 23 June 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sindoni
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 365

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Intentionally cause serious injury — Injury by shooting — No prior convictions — Evidence of good character disputed by pre-sentence report — No contradiction of pre-sentence report — Youthful offender — s 16, Crimes Act 1958

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. B.F. Kissane	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the accused	Mr. S.G. Langslow	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Aaron Placido Sindoni, on 16 June 2009 you were convicted by a jury in this Court of intentionally causing serious injury to Cedar Ferry, contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958. It is now the duty of this Court to pass sentence upon you according to law. The maximum penalty for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury is imprisonment for 20 years. It is the most serious of the non-sexual assault offences short of attempted murder, of which you were acquitted by the same jury.

The Crime

On Thursday, 27 March 2008 you attended a pre-wedding party for a friend at Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club in Sydney Road, Brunswick. The premises were referred to throughout your trial as a nightclub although the activities for which it catered were never specifically spelt out. It is situated on the eastern side of Sydney Road between Stewart Street and Albion Street.

The evidence at your trial disclosed that you arrived at the club some time after about 7:30 p.m., and remained there until some time shortly after 1:00 a.m. the following morning. During that time you, in the company of the other 15 or so young males who attended the same party, drank alcohol and otherwise socialised. The club provided some form of exotic female entertainment during the evening.

In the course of the evening you left the club from time to time to smoke cigarettes. This you did on the footpath in the vicinity of ashtrays provided for smokers at the front of the club.

Some time after about 1:00 a.m. you were excluded from the club by one or more of the club’s security staff. Whether you were actually escorted from the club, as at least one witness said, or left the club and were refused re-entry, matters little. It seems clear that in one way or another you became angered by the treatment you received. The evidence also disclosed that the expressed reason for your exclusion was that you had had what the security staff believed to be “too much to drink”.

One witness, the club receptionist, whose evidence I accept, said that as you were being ejected from the club you uttered an obscenity to those ejecting you, which obscenity,…

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 [2009] VSC 365
Case: [2009] VSC 365
Decision Date: 27 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sindoni, the defendant was charged with intentionally causing serious injury to another person by shooting. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Walton. The dispute centred around the sentencing of Sindoni, with particular focus on his good character and the impact of the pre-sentence report. Sindoni, who had no prior convictions, argued that the pre-sentence report, which disputed his good character, should not be given weight as it was not contradicted by any evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the pre-sentence report should be considered in sentencing and if it was appropriate to disregard Sindoni's good character due to the absence of any contradiction to the report's findings. The court was required to balance the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence in sentencing a youthful offender who had committed a serious crime. Additionally, the court had to consider the statutory framework provided by section 16 of the Crimes Act 1958, which requires the court to consider the character of the offender.

Justice Walton held that the pre-sentence report should be taken into account in sentencing, as it was not contradicted by any evidence. The court found that the absence of a contradiction to the report's findings did not negate the value of the report's content. The judge considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence, while also acknowledging Sindoni's good character and lack of prior convictions. Ultimately, the court determined that the evidence supported the pre-sentence report's findings and that Sindoni's good character should not be given significant weight in light of the circumstances of the offence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

The court ordered Sindoni to serve a term of imprisonment, with specific considerations given to his youth and the potential for rehabilitation. The exact length of the sentence was determined based on the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the need to balance the interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders