R v Stratton, Masuglia & Stratton - [2007] VSC 132

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1496 of 2005

THE QUEEN

LEONARD NOEL STRATTON,
JOSHUA MASUGLIA
TRACEY LEE STRATTON

---

JUDGE:	Curtain J
DATE OF HEARING:	13 April, 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 April, 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Stratton; Stratton and Masuglia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 132

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Armed Robbery – Assisting Offender

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Brown Mr Gant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused L Stratton	Mr Gucciardo	Valos Black & Associates
For the Accused J Masuglia	Mr Saunders	Haines & Polites
For the Accused T L Stratton	Mr Mason	Clareborough Pica

HER HONOUR:

Leonard Stratton, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and have admitted prior convictions. Joshua Masuglia, you have pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and have admitted prior convictions. Tracey Stratton, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender and have also admitted prior convictions.

In the early hours of the 21^st May 2002 you, Leonard Stratton and you, Joshua Masuglia, in the company of at least on other, gained entry to a garage at the rear of a house at 121 Hall Street, Ardeer. Your purpose was to steal a cannabis crop which was under cultivation in the garage. To that end you, Leonard Stratton, were armed with a loaded .22 sawn-off rifle and it is said that your role was to “keep nit”. You gained entry by kicking a rear-side door and at some stage the occupants of the house, Dai Nong and his wife, Lan Hong, became aware that there were intruders in the backyard and Dai Nong, armed with a tomahawk, went to investigate.

Whilst in the backyard at some point you held the sawn-off rifle in the direction of Dai Nong, the gun discharged and the bullet entered his left eye socket. His wife and other relatives who had been called to the house as a result of the disturbance later found him unconscious and he was taken to the Sunshine Hospital where he was pronounced dead. It is not put that you directly aimed the rifle at Dai Nong but that you committed an unlawful and dangerous act in presenting a loaded firearm in the direction of Dai Nong, in the course of which a bullet was discharged and death resulted. This conduct forms the subject of the manslaughter charge.

The two of you, together with the other co-offenders, jumped over the rear fence of the property taking the cannabis plants with you. You, Joshua Masuglia, had parked your car in the street immediately behind the Hall Street address prior to committing the aggravated burglary. However, in the course of fleeing the premises you dropped your car keys and thus abandoned the car at the location. Your participation in this episode gives rise to the charge of aggravated burglary to which you have pleaded…

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 Stratton, Masuglia & Stratton

Details

AGLC: R v Stratton, Masuglia and Stratton [2007] VSC 132
Case: [2007] VSC 132
Decision Date: 24 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved three defendants, Stratton, Masuglia, and Stratton, who were charged in relation to a series of armed robberies and the subsequent death of a victim during one of the robberies. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants were accused of participating in the planning and execution of multiple armed robberies, during which one of the victims was fatally injured. The prosecution alleged that the defendants were responsible for the victim's death as a result of their criminal activities.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing for each defendant considering their roles in the crimes, and whether the charge of manslaughter could be upheld given the circumstances. The court had to determine the extent of each defendant's involvement in the armed robberies and the events leading to the victim's death. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the charge of assisting an offender could apply to any of the defendants.

The court found that all three defendants were involved in the planning and execution of the armed robberies, with varying degrees of participation. The court held that the charge of manslaughter was appropriate as the victim's death was a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' criminal actions. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the roles of the defendants, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The defendants were each sentenced to terms of imprisonment, reflecting their respective roles in the crimes.

The court ordered that Stratton and Masuglia be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and the second Stratton to 12 years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of their involvement in the armed robberies and the resulting manslaughter. The sentences also took into account the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

Orders