R v Sonnet - [2008] VSC 221

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1443 of 2005

THE QUEEN

SEAN JASON SONNET

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 May 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sonnet
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 221

---

Sentence – conspiracy to murder – gangland execution – professional conspiracy – high level of culpability – moments from execution.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Tinney	OPP
For the Accused	Mr A. Brand	Robert Stary

HER HONOUR:

Sean Sonnet, you have been convicted of one count of conspiracy to murder Mario Condello between the dates of the 29th day of May and 9 June 2004. You have also pleaded guilty to one count of theft of a motor vehicle, two counts of being an unregistered person in possession of a firearm, and one count of possessing cartridge ammunition without permit or licence.

You are now aged 39 years, having been born on 22 April 1969. You are unemployed and you have admitted significant prior convictions, which I will deal with shortly.

The offences for which you are to be sentenced have varying maximum penalties established by Parliament and they are as follows. Conspiracy to murder, life imprisonment. Theft of a motor vehicle, 10 years. Prohibited person in possession of unregistered firearm, 15 years and/or 1800 penalty units. Possessing cartridge ammunition without permit, 40 penalty units.

As indicated you have some significant prior convictions and what may be referred to as a lengthy criminal history, being some 58 offences from 15 appearances. They commenced in 1989 when you were aged 19, with charges of going equipped to steal, burglary and wilful damage and failing to answer bail. You were fined in respect of some of those matters and also placed on a Good Behaviour Bond. Your behaviour then would be described as petty crime, continuing up until you were convicted on 18 September 1990 when aged approximately 22, of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to 30 months with a minimum of 15 months. The next day you received six months' imprisonment concurrent in respect of drug possession and trafficking charges and possession of a firearm.

Upon release it would seem that your drug matters continued as you were charged with offences relating to possession and forging of a drug prescription, for which you received minor fines. In September 1994 you were convicted of three counts of armed robbery and three counts of possession of a firearm without a licence, for which you were sentenced in total to 40 months with a minimum of 30 months. In November 1998, on charges of aggravated burglary, burglary, theft and obtaining by deception, you received a total of four years with a minimum of two years. In September 1999 you were convicted of recklessly and intentionally causing serious injury, and various other assaults, and received a total of 12 months. The only other significant…

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 Sonnet

Details

AGLC: R v Sonnet [2008] VSC 221
Case: [2008] VSC 221
Decision Date: 29 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sonnet, the defendant faced charges related to his involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder. The incident in question involved a gangland execution, where the defendant was part of a group that had meticulously planned the act. The case was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary dispute centred on the extent of the defendant's culpability in the conspiracy and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, considering the gravity of the offence.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's role in the conspiracy, weighing the level of his involvement and the high degree of culpability associated with orchestrating a professional execution. Key issues included whether the conspiracy was a professional one and the specific role of the defendant in the planning and execution of the murder. The court also had to consider the circumstances at the moment of the execution and whether the defendant had any opportunity to withdraw from the conspiracy.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully evaluated the evidence presented regarding the defendant's involvement in the conspiracy. It considered the sophistication of the planning, the defendant's level of engagement, and the proximity to the execution itself. The court concluded that the defendant's culpability was significant, given the professional nature of the conspiracy and his active role. The sentence imposed reflected the severity of the crime and the defendant's high level of involvement.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the nature of the crime and the defendant's culpability. The precise length of the sentence was determined based on the detailed assessment of the evidence and legal principles applicable to such a serious offence.

Orders