Rintoull v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 245

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0981
CLINTON RINTOULL	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and HANSEN JJA and WHELAN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	28 July 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	23 August 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 245
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2009] VSC 617 (Curtain J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Intentionally damaging property – Plea of guilty – Total effective sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years – Whether judge gave effect to intention that appellant spend a longer than normal period on parole – Adequacy of weight for plea of guilty – Judge entitled to reject submission that appellant ought be sentenced on basis of reckless murder – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms H Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

I agree with Hansen JA that the appeal should be dismissed.

HANSEN JA:

On 15 September 2009 the appellant, Clinton David Rintoull, pleaded guilty on arraignment to one count of murder and one count of intentionally damaging property, namely a house. He was charged with a co-offender, Dylan Giuseppe Sabatino, who on 21 September 2009 pleaded guilty on arraignment to a substitute count of manslaughter and the count of intentionally damaging property.

Pleas in mitigation were heard by the same judge, who sentenced the appellant and Sabatino on 18 December 2009. The appellant was sentenced as follows: 20 years’ imprisonment for murder and one year’s imprisonment for intentionally damaging property. No order for cumulation was made, thus producing a total effective sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 16 years was fixed. Her Honour declared pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that but for the plea of guilty a total effective sentence of 23 years with a non-parole period of 19 years would have been imposed. The maximum sentence for murder is life while that for intentional damage to property is 10 years.

The appellant now appeals against his sentence pursuant to leave.

Sabatino was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter and one year for intentionally damaging property, producing a total effective sentence of 10 years. A non-parole period of six years was fixed. He has not appealed.

The victim, Liep Johnson Gony, was born in the Sudan. When he was six he fled (with his family) to Ethiopia. He came to Australia with family members in 1999, and ultimately to Victoria in 2001 where they lived as part of the Sudanese community in Springvale South. At the time of his death he had successfully

applied to study graphic design at a TAFE college and was about to commence full time employment. He was aged 19 when he died on 27 September 2007.

In September 2007 Rintoull was aged 22 and living with a former girlfriend, Emily Chambers, at…

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 Rintoull v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rintoull v The Queen [2011] VSCA 245
Case: [2011] VSCA 245
Decision Date: 23 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rintoull v The Queen involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and to an additional charge of intentionally damaging property. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years was appropriate, particularly considering the appellant's plea of guilty and the intention to give effect to a longer than normal period on parole. A further issue was whether the judge adequately considered the submission that the appellant should have been sentenced based on the lesser charge of reckless murder.

The court examined the sentencing process undertaken by the trial judge. It was noted that the judge had thoroughly considered the plea of guilty, the appellant's remorse, and the objective seriousness of the crime. The court found that the judge appropriately balanced these factors and was entitled to reject the submission that the appellant should be sentenced for reckless murder. The High Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such a serious crime. The court upheld the trial judge's discretion and reasoning in imposing the sentence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.