Legal Research
Cases
Raccosta v The Queen

Raccosta v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 59 4 April 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0153

JOHN RACCOSTA	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	Neave JA, Mandie JA and Cavanough AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	14 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	4 April 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 59
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Raccosta (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Sexton, 16 June 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Armed robbery – Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two and a half years – Total effective sentence exceeded Crown range given below – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether undue weight given to Victim Impact Statement –Appeal dismissed

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellant:	Mr D Dann	Slades & Parsons
For the respondent:	Mr D Trapnell SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA:
MANDIE JA:
CAVANOUGH AJA:

On 11 March 2011, after a five day trial by jury in the County Court, the appellant, John Raccosta, was convicted of one count of armed robbery. On 16 June 2011 he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. He now appeals against that sentence.

Nature and circumstances of the offending[1]

[1]The following summary is based partly on the Crown’s summary of relevant facts set out in its written case dated 20 September 2011, partly on the sentencing judge’s description of the offending, and partly on the appellant’s summary of facts in his written case dated 24 August 2011, all of which were consistent. There was no dispute about the circumstances of the offending during the hearing before us.

At 11.30 pm on 2 January 2008 the appellant, then aged 44, approached the complainant who was working as a prostitute in the St Kilda area. They agreed that she would perform sexual services for him for a fee. The complainant got into the appellant’s car and directed the appellant to a secluded place. On arrival the appellant paid the complainant with a $100 note and sexual services were performed in the back seat of the car.

The appellant proceeded to smoke a cannabis bong. Afterwards he produced a knife and put it to the complainant’s face, saying something like: ‘I have got to do this, give me back the money’ (referring to the $100 note). The knife looked home made. It had grey masking tape around the handle and was about 40-45 centimetres long. The complainant told the appellant that her money was in a bag in the front seat. The appellant told her to get it. She attempted to open the side door of the vehicle, but it was locked. The appellant stated ‘If you try anything, I’m going to slit your throat’. The complainant then got into the front seat, obtained the $100 note and handed it over to the appellant because she thought he was going to hurt her. The appellant told her to get out of the car and she…

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 Raccosta v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Raccosta v The Queen [2012] VSCA 59
Case: [2012] VSCA 59
Decision Date: 4 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raccosta v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had given undue weight to the Victim Impact Statement. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had given undue weight to the Victim Impact Statement. The court was required to determine if the sentence exceeded the Crown range and if the sentence was disproportionate to the offence, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the impact of the Victim Impact Statement.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the total effective sentence did not exceed the Crown range. The court noted that the trial judge had carefully considered the principles of sentencing and had given proper weight to the Victim Impact Statement. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not given undue weight to the Victim Impact Statement. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had given proper consideration to the principles of sentencing and the Victim Impact Statement. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and did not exceed the Crown range.

Orders