R v Vecchi - [2023] ACTSC 410

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Vecchi
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 410
Hearing Date:	13 June 2023
Decision Date:	13 June 2023
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of Good Behaviour Order – whether to impose suspended sentence of imprisonment – whether to resentence – where resentence appropriate to continue rehabilitative efforts
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
Cases Cited:	Guy v Anderson [2013] ACTSC 5 Gyory v R [2012] ACTCA 28 R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32 R v Bennett [2017] ACTSC 104 R v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358 R v Vecchi [2021] ACTSC 70
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Kieren Vecchi ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel L Etheredge ( DPP) L Vozella ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Vozella Lawyers ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 198 of 2020

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

1․On 15 April 2021, the offender, Mr Kieren Vecchi, was sentenced by Burns J to 20 months imprisonment for the offence of burglary, and a further 10 months imprisonment for the offence of theft. The balance of those sentences was suspended on 15 April 2021 and the offender was sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) for a period of two years in relation to the offence of burglary, and a 12-month GBO in respect of the offence of theft. Burns J also imposed a reparation order in the sum of $81.12 to be paid within 14 days. Counsel for the offender confirmed that, on instructions, this reparation order was paid.
2․The terms of the GBOs directed the offender to accept the supervision of the Director-General for Corrective Services for a period of two years or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by the Supervisor, and to accept all reasonable directions of the Supervising Officer. The offender was directed to undertake such assessments, treatment or counselling for drug abuse as directed by the Supervising Officer.
3․Subsequently, the offender was convicted and sentenced in the Queanbeyan Local Court on 16 August 2022 for the following offences:
(a)possess prohibited drug;
(b)cultivate prohibited plant;
(c)drive recklessly/furiously or speed in a manner dangerous;
(d)destroy or damage property;
(e)stalk or intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm;
(f)contravene prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Violence Order;
(g)common assault; and
(h)contravene prohibition restriction in an Apprehended Violence Order.

Breach of GBOs

4․Upon conviction for these offences, the offender was in breach of the GBOs imposed by Burns J in this Court. Burns J having now retired, the breach falls to me to be dealt with. In relation to the facts relevant to the sentence imposed by Burns J, they are recited, in short, in his Honour's reasons at [2] in R v Vecchi [2021] ACTSC 70. That short summary is as follows:
It is sufficient to note that between the dates…

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 Vecchi

Details

AGLC: R v Vecchi [2023] ACTSC 410
Case: [2023] ACTSC 410
Decision Date: 13 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vecchi before the Court involved the defendant, Vecchi, who was before the Court on a matter of sentencing following a breach of a Good Behaviour Order. The Court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action in response to the defendant’s breach of the order, including whether to impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment or to resentence in a manner that would continue to facilitate the defendant's rehabilitation efforts. The nature of the dispute centred on the balance between punitive measures and rehabilitative approaches in the context of criminal sentencing.

The primary legal issue that the Court needed to address was whether the breach of the Good Behaviour Order warranted the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, or if an alternative approach was more appropriate. Specifically, the Court considered whether it was appropriate to resentence Vecchi in a way that would allow for continued efforts towards rehabilitation, rather than opting for immediate punitive measures. This involved evaluating the circumstances of the breach, the defendant’s history, and the potential for rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the Court examined the nature and gravity of the breach, the defendant's previous conduct, and the overall objectives of sentencing. It considered the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation, ultimately determining that a suspended sentence of imprisonment might not be the most constructive approach. Instead, the Court decided that a resentence aimed at facilitating ongoing rehabilitation was more appropriate. This decision was grounded in the belief that such an approach would better serve the interests of justice and the potential for the defendant's reintegration into society.

Consequently, the Court opted to resentence Vecchi, focusing on measures that would support his rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of future breaches. This decision reflected a balanced approach that considered both the need for accountability and the importance of providing opportunities for the defendant to address underlying issues that contributed to the breach. The final orders, as detailed in [30], reflect this decision to resentence rather than impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.