Regina v Valensise - [2006] NSWCCA 315

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Valensise [2006] NSWCCA 315

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/1198

HEARING DATE(S): 21 August 2006

DECISION DATE: 10/10/2006

PARTIES:
Regina v Gino Valensise

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Kirby J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0351

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Puckeridge DCJ

COUNSEL:
W. Dawe QC (Crown/Appellant)
W. Barber (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE
CANNABIS CROP CULTIVATION
LARGE COMMERCIAL QUANTITY
ROLE OF PARTICIPANT
SEPARATE MATTERS ON FORM 1
INADEQUACY
MAJOR CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
SENTENCE INCREASED

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
CROWN APPEAL ALLOWED
RESPONDENT RESENTENCED

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/1198
GROVE J
KIRBY J
HISLOP J
10 October 2006

REGINA v GINO VALENSISE

Judgment

GROVE J: This is a Crown appeal asserting the manifest inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the Respondent by Puckeridge DCJ on 13 April 2006 at Sydney District Court. The Respondent was committed for sentence following his plea of guilty in Central Local Court to a charge of knowingly taking part in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited plant (cannabis sativa) for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for twenty years and/or a fine of $550,000. His Honour was asked to take into account on a Form 1, three charges of deemed supply of prohibited drug, namely 978.7 grammes of cannabis leaf (the indictable quantity is 1000 grammes); 87.5 grammes of methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (the indictable quantity is 1.25 grammes) and 7.18 grammes of methylamphetamine (the indictable quantity is 5 grammes). The cultivation which was the subject of the principal charge consisted of 6,795 plants.
His Honour sentenced the Respondent to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of eight months thirty days and a balance term of twenty one months and one day. The sentence was directed to commence on the day of imposition and the period arrived at by taking into account one month one day of pre-sentence custody undergone by the Respondent after his arrest and prior to entry into bail.
The Respondent stood for sentence upon an agreed statement of facts which incorporated the charges on the Form 1. The facts were:
“On the 15 March 2003 police executed two search warrants on neighbouring properties in the Fifield area, about 90 kilometres north west of Parkes. The first warrant was executed on the property ‘Emu Plains’. The second warrant was executed on a property ‘Hippy Valley’ where police located 2 cannabis plantations of mature plants fed by an irrigation system sourced from ‘Emu Plains’. A total of 6,765 cannabis plants were located. The estimated value of the crops was $13,880,000. There was a site on ‘Happy Valley’ (sic) with a large blue and white marquee tent covering racks with Hessian attached, a toilet block, tents, caravan, large work site office, large generator and other items consistent with accommodation and facilities for workers to occupy to harvest and dry the cannabis plants.
‘Emu Plains’ is owned by Guiseppe Mammone, date of birth…

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 Valensise

Details

AGLC: Regina v Valensise [2006] NSWCCA 315
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 315
Decision Date: 10 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina versus Valensise was heard in a court of appeal in New South Wales. The defendant had been convicted for his involvement in the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis, and the appeal was against his sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was adequate, given the defendant's role in the crime. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's role, and the sentencing principles applicable to major criminal enterprises.

The court held that the original sentence was inadequate and increased the punishment. It found that the crime involved a significant commercial quantity of cannabis and was part of a major criminal enterprise. The defendant's role was significant, although not the most dominant, and the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending, including related matters on Form 1, in determining the appropriate sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to reflect the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence. The defendant's new sentence was to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in related matters. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for major criminal enterprises adequately reflect the gravity of the offending and the need for general deterrence.

Orders