R v Tiberi - [2013] VSC 710

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0062 of 2013

THE QUEEN

PETER JOSEPH TIBERI

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tiberi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 710

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Kidnapping – Intentionally causing serious injury – Substantial illicit drug enterprise – Victim thought to have stolen drugs and money – Victim taken from his home – Seriously assaulted before accused left the scene - Plea of guilty – Youth – Lack of prior convictions – Remorse – Effect of drug addiction.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown with Ms S Keating	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Dickinson SC	Slades and Parsons Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

Peter Joseph Tiberi, on 21 August 2013, in this Court, you pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping and one charge of intentionally causing serious injury. Because your offending occurred in conjunction with the criminal actions of Brok Seckold and Matthew Lowe, and because they both stood trial on the indictment filed in relation to them, your sentencing has awaited the completion of those trials.

On 16 December 2013, I heard submissions on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions and from senior counsel on your behalf in relation to the sentence that should be imposed on you. I must now sentence you for your crimes. Pursuant to s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for kidnapping contrary to the common law is 25 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years’ imprisonment.

You committed these offences as one of several involved in the kidnapping and assault of Yengo Faugere. He was later murdered. The Crown accept that you were not involved in the acts that caused Faugere’s death. On 7 February 2012, Faugere’s partial remains were found at a property in Manifold Road, St Leonards. They were contained in a barrel on the back of a Nissan Navarra utility parked in a padlocked garage.

The prosecution case against you was that you, together with Brok Seckold, Matthew Lowe and possibly others, at the instigation of Seckold, agreed in October 2011 to kidnap Yengo Faugere for reasons that will shortly become apparent.

At the time of the discovery of Faugere’s remains Seckold, Lowe and others (but yourself not included) had been operating a series of substantial clandestine drug laboratories both at St Leonards, where the remains were found, and earlier at other locations in metropolitan Melbourne.

The Crown case is that the evidence establishes that Brok Seckold was the instigator and owner of a drug manufacturing business. You were a consumer of the drugs which he manufactured. Indeed, you developed a severe methylamphetamine addiction. Yengo Faugere was an associate of Seckold’s from New South Wales at a time when they were both living in that State. He ultimately became…

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 Tiberi

Details

AGLC: R v Tiberi [2013] VSC 710
Case: [2013] VSC 710
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tiberi involved the defendant, Tiberi, who was charged with kidnapping and intentionally causing serious injury. The victim, who Tiberi believed had stolen drugs and money, was taken from his home, seriously assaulted, and then left at the scene. Tiberi, who pleaded guilty, was a youth with no prior convictions but was struggling with drug addiction at the time of the offence. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, expression of remorse, and the impact of drug addiction.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the appropriate sentencing for the serious nature of the crime, the mitigating factors of the defendant's youth and lack of prior criminal history, and the impact of drug addiction on his actions. The court also considered whether the remorse expressed by the defendant was genuine and whether it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing. The balance between punishment and rehabilitation was central to the court's deliberations, particularly given the defendant's age and the influence of drug addiction.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, which involved a violent attack motivated by perceived theft of drugs and money. The court recognised that while the defendant's lack of prior convictions and expression of remorse were mitigating factors, they did not negate the severity of the crime. The court also considered the significant influence of drug addiction on the defendant's actions, which, while not excusing the crime, provided context for the sentencing. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence that focused on rehabilitation, taking into account the defendant's age and the circumstances of the offence, was appropriate.

The final orders of the court balanced the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation. Tiberi was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific directives for rehabilitation programs, particularly those addressing his drug addiction. The court also imposed conditions aimed at ensuring the defendant's reintegration into society and reducing the risk of reoffending. The sentence reflected the court's view that, while the crime was serious, the defendant's youth and circumstances warranted a focus on rehabilitation over purely punitive measures.

Orders