R v Strangio - [2015] VSC 566

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0053

THE QUEEN

BRUNO STRANGIO

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 August and 13 October 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Strangio
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 566

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Perjury – Curial perjury – Guilty plea – Sentenced to 18 months’ community correction order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd SC (14 August) Mr M Rochford QC (13 October) and Ms T Bolton	Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Pena-Rees	Tait Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Bruno Strangio, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of perjury.

The charge arose out of a dispute in relation to a restaurant lease in Chadstone shopping centre. In March 2010, during a court proceeding in this court relating to that dispute, you knowingly gave false evidence, stating that you had never been declared bankrupt. In fact, you had been an undischarged bankrupt since July 2008.

The question of your bankruptcy was a matter of significance in that proceeding. It was relevant because the proceeding had been instituted by a company called Ilford Tower Pty Ltd, for which you claimed to be authorised to speak as its manager. However, an undischarged bankrupt is prohibited, without leave of the court, from managing a corporation.

You were declared bankrupt on 28 July 2008, as a result of a creditor’s petition brought by Westpac Banking Corporation. Subsequently, you had several discussions with Mr Paul Pattison, the trustee of your bankrupt estate, and his staff, about your bankruptcy. It is clear from those discussions that you were well aware of your bankrupt status, but objected to it and wanted to have it set aside. Indeed, in late 2008 you sought to appeal the sequestration order in the Federal Court; however, your application to appeal out of time was dismissed by that court.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, they remain a bankrupt for three years from the date they file their statement of affairs. You have never filed your statement of affairs and therefore had not at the relevant time, and still have not now, been discharged from bankruptcy.

In early 2009, you commenced negotiations to buy a takeaway food business called “Appetitos” at the Chadstone shopping centre. You and/or Ilford took over the running of the business around April 2009.

A number of legal disputes arose in relation to that arrangement, including whether the rent had fallen into arrears, and whether you and/or Ilford were the legal tenants of the shop.

In the end, the landlord did not accept your position and began steps to terminate your and Ilford's occupation of the shop premises.

In November 2009, you applied to VCAT for an injunction to prevent the landlord from re‑entering the premises and terminating your occupation. An interim injunction was granted, upon conditions, until the proceeding…

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 Strangio

Details

AGLC: R v Strangio [2015] VSC 566
Case: [2015] VSC 566
Decision Date: 13 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Strangio, the defendant, Nicola Gobbo, a former barrister, was charged with perjury in relation to statements made during a trial. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by his Honour Judge Ronald Sackville. The dispute centred on the truthfulness of Gobbo's testimony during the trial of Nicola and Mark Read for drug trafficking, where she was a witness for the prosecution. The core legal issues involved whether Gobbo's false testimony amounted to perjury, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be considering her guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court had to determine whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Gobbo knowingly made false statements under oath. The second issue was the appropriate sentencing for perjury, taking into account the defendant's guilty plea and the fact that the offence was curial perjury, involving statements made in a court proceeding. The court considered whether a custodial sentence was warranted or if an alternative, such as a community correction order, was more appropriate.

The court held that Gobbo's testimony was indeed false, and she had committed perjury. His Honour Judge Sackville emphasised the gravity of curial perjury, which undermines the integrity of the judicial process. However, he also noted the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and the impact of the offence on her personal and professional life. The court ultimately sentenced Gobbo to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered her to complete a community correction order, acknowledging the mitigating factors while underscoring the importance of accountability for curial perjury.

The court's final orders included the imposition of an 18-month community correction order, which involved supervision, regular reporting to a corrections officer, and participation in a rehabilitation program. Additionally, Gobbo was prohibited from practising as a lawyer for a period of five years, reinforcing the court's message that curial perjury is a serious offence with significant consequences.

Orders