Regina v Treglia - [2002] NSWCCA 338

CITATION: Regina v Treglia [2002] NSWCCA 338

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60189/02

HEARING DATE(S): 12/8/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 August 2002

PARTIES :

Crown
Giovanni Johnny Treglia

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Adams J at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/1047

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hock DCJ

COUNSEL : DG Dalton - Applicant
DC Frearson - Crown

SOLICITORS: John B Hajje & Associates - Applicant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Application for leave to appeal against sentence - perjury - whether sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Police Integrity Commission Act 1996

CASES CITED:
Haddad and Treglia (2000) 116 A Crim R 312
R v Bulliman (CCA, unreported, 25.2.93)
R v Simpson [2001] NSW CCA 534
R v Fish and Swan [2002] NSW CCA 196
R v Giang [2001] NSW CCA 276
R v Irwin [1999] NSW CCA 361

DECISION: See para 16.

60189/02

HIDDEN J
ADAMS J
21 August, 2002

REGINA v Giovanni Johnny TREGLIA

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Giovanni Treglia, pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of perjury, an offence under s327 of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for ten years. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, to date from 7 November 2001, with a non-parole period of three years. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2 He had originally been charged with the aggravated offence under s328 of the Crimes Act of committing perjury with the intent to procure his acquittal of a serious indictable offence, carrying a maximum sentence of fourteen years. The prosecution of that charge led to a successful appeal by the Crown under s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act against the rejection of certain evidence obtained by the use of a listening device: see Haddad and Treglia (2000) 116 A Crim R 312. Subsequently, the Crown accepted his plea of guilty to the offence under s 327. The man Haddad was also charged with perjury but failed to appear and, apparently, has not been located.

3 The charge arises from evidence which the applicant gave in June 1995 at his trial, with Haddad, for three charges of armed robbery and two charges of assault. The two men were alleged to have been involved in a violent home invasion in November 1994. The applicant and Haddad gave evidence of an alibi, and called witnesses in support of it. Both were acquitted. It was only at that stage that investigating police became aware that a listening device had been installed in the applicant’s cell in December 1994, and that it had recorded a conversation between him and Haddad in which both men acknowledged having been present at the home on the occasion in question.

4 The sentencing judge referred to the observations of Abadee J in R v Bulliman (CCA, unreported, 25.2.93) stressing the seriousness of giving false evidence and the need for deterrent sentences for those…

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 Treglia

Details

AGLC: Regina v Treglia [2002] NSWCCA 338
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 338
Decision Date: 21 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Treglia, the defendant appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the severity of his sentence for perjury. Treglia was convicted of perjury following a trial where he falsely testified under oath. The trial judge sentenced him to a term of imprisonment, which Treglia argued was manifestly excessive. The appeal centred on the question of whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was disproportionately severe given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for perjury, including the need to deter such offences, and the circumstances under which the perjury was committed. It was necessary to assess whether the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes given the seriousness of the offence. The court examined the gravity of the offence, the impact of the perjury on the proceedings, and the defendant's role in the commission of the offence. The court also took into account the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences.

The Supreme Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court emphasised the importance of truthfulness in legal proceedings and the need for appropriate deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders