R v Strano - [2002] NSWCCA 531

CITATION: R v Strano [2002] NSWCCA 531 revised - 19/02/2003

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60141/02

HEARING DATE(S): 17/12/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Raymond Dominic Strano

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1, 100, 102; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Sully J at 101

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0013

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hock DCJ

COUNSEL : G J Bellew (Crown)
S J Odgers SC

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against severity of sentence - make false statement with intent to obtain financial advantage - plea of not guilty.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 1994 CLR 610
Postiglione v the Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Regina v Corner NSWCCA 19 December 1997
Regina v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
Regina v El Rashid NSWCCA 7 April 1995,
Regina v Moffatt, VCCA 15 December 1992
Regina v Petrovic (1998) VSCA 1995
Regina v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21

DECISION: See paras 91 - 99

- 21 -IN THE COURT OF

60412/02

SHELLER JA
WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
Tuesday 17 December 2002

Regina v Raymond Dominic Strano

Judgment

1 SHELLER JA: In this matter the Court is in a position to give judgment now, and I will ask Justice Wood to give the first judgment.

2 WOOD CJ AT CL: The applicant, Raymond Dominic Strano, seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed by her Honour Judge Hock in the District Court on 15 March 2002.

3 On 24 October 2001 a jury found him guilty of seventeen counts of making a false statement with intent to obtain a financial advantage contrary to s 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (New South Wales) an offence for which the maximum available penalty is imprisonment for five years.

4 Judge Hock sentenced him to an overall sentence of eight years with a non parole period of five years. That sentence effectively commenced on 25 October 2001, so that the head sentence was due to expire on 24 October 2009. The non parole period was directed to expire on 24 October 2006.

5 The sentence was comprised by a series of fixed terms in relation to sixteen of the seventeen counts, which were grouped as follows:

6 Additionally, in relation to the count which I will refer to as that incorporated…

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 Strano

Details

AGLC: R v Strano [2002] NSWCCA 531
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 531
Decision Date: 17 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Strano involved the appellant, Strano, who was convicted of making a false statement with intent to obtain a financial advantage. Strano appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed upon him. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentence was excessive or disproportionate to the offence committed, and whether there were any grounds for reducing the sentence. The court also had to consider the appellant's plea of not guilty and the evidence presented during the trial. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offence against the appellant's personal circumstances and any mitigating factors.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive or disproportionate to the offence committed. The court noted that the offence was serious and had a significant impact on the victim. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and found that there were no significant mitigating factors that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not need to be altered. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence committed and took into account the appellant's personal circumstances. The court also noted that the appellant had pleaded not guilty and that the evidence presented during the trial supported the conviction. The court held that there were no grounds for reducing the sentence and dismissed the appeal.

Orders