Regina v Pennisi - [2001] NSWSC 461

CITATION: Regina v Pennisi [2001] NSWSC 461

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70064/00

HEARING DATE(S): 7/5/01, 8/5/01, 9/5/01, 10/5/01, 11/5/01, 25/5/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 June 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Rosario Pennisi - Accused

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Laura Wells - Crown
Stuart Littlemore QC - Accused

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
John Bettens & Co - Accused

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaugter unlawful and dangerous act - repeated discharge of loaded firearm

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Harris [1961] VR 326
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v MacDonald NSWCA 12 December 1995
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309

DECISION: Sentence - Nine years imprisonment to date from 5 April 2000; Non parole period of six years; The earliest date eligible for release on parole is 4 April 2006

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J
6 June 2001
70064/00 - Regina v Rosario PENNISI

JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR:

1 On 7 May 2001 the prisoner, Rosario Pennisi, was arraigned before me on an indictment charging him with the murder of Rodolfo Valentino at Ulladulla on 5 April 2000. The prisoner entered a plea of not guilty and a jury was empanelled. On 11 May 2001 the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

2 The deceased died as the result of gun shot wounds. He was shot ten times at close range as he stood in the car park of the Top of the Town shopping centre, Ulladulla.

3 There were no witnesses to the killing. Shortly after shooting the deceased the prisoner surrendered himself to police at the Ulladulla Police Station. Thereafter he participated in a lengthy video recorded interview with Detective Senior Constable Hines (“the ERISP”). In the course of the ERISP the prisoner gave an account of the killing making a number of frank admissions. Later that day he participated in a re-enactment of the crime at the scene. This was also video recorded.

4 At the trial Detective Hines agreed that the prisoner had been completely cooperative in the course of the investigation. Such information as the prisoner provided which was susceptible of verification proved to be truthful.

5 I approach the matter of sentence upon an acceptance of the version given by the prisoner in the course of his interviews with Detective Hines and in the course of his evidence given at the trial.

6 The deceased was the proprietor of the Top of the Town shopping centre. Some time prior to the shooting the prisoner leased premises at the centre from the deceased and opened a chicken shop. There were difficulties between the two which led to the prisoner selling his business and returning to his former occupation as a fisherman.

7 The deceased commenced legal proceedings against the prisoner seeking to recover one month’s unpaid rent together with compensation for what was said to be…

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 Regina v Pennisi

Details

AGLC: Regina v Pennisi [2001] NSWSC 461
Case: [2001] NSWSC 461
Decision Date: 6 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pennisi, appealed against his conviction for manslaughter, arguing that the sentence imposed was excessive. The trial judge found that the unlawful and dangerous act involved the repeated discharge of a loaded firearm in public, which contributed to the death of a 16-year-old boy. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge misdirected himself on the relevant sentencing principles.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles. The court considered whether the trial judge had properly assessed the gravity of the unlawful and dangerous act, the appellant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also examined whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the gravity of the unlawful and dangerous act or in his consideration of the appellant's culpability. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the need for deterrence and denunciation in imposing the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no basis for interfering with the trial judge's assessment of the gravity of the unlawful and dangerous act or the appellant's culpability. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders