Legal Research
Cases
Romeo v The Queen

Romeo v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 221 31 August 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Romeo v R [2020] NSWCCA 221
Hearing dates: 13 July 2020
Date of orders: 31 August 2020
Decision date: 31 August 2020
Before: Price J at [1]
Garling J at [127]
Wright J at [128]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – solicit to murder – whether error in the judge’s assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence – whether the offence could fall within the mid-range of objective seriousness when no positive finding was made that he was the instigator – whether applicant’s role in the planning of the offence was limited – whether sentence manifestly excessive – consideration of other cases

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 26
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 79
Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13

Cases Cited:
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2; 88 ALJR 372; 305 ALR 323; 236 A Crim R 116
Benitez v R [2006] NSWCCA 21; 160 A Crim R 166
Efthimiadis v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 9
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45; 85 ALJR 195; 272 ALR 465; 204 A Crim R 434
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40; 10 ALJ 22; 10 ALJR 202; 55 ALR 499
Louizos v R [2014] NSWCCA 242
Louizos v R; R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71; 194 A Crim R 223
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25; 79 ALJR 1048; 215 ALR 213
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39; 85 ALJR 1154; 281 ALR 652; 212 A Crim R 254
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221; 350 ALR 103
R v Afu; R v Caleo(No 17) [2018] NSWSC 1127
R v Baker [2017] NSWCCA 233
R v Baker [2019] NSWCCA 58
R v Hamide [2018] NSWDC 172
Rahman v R [2020] NSWCCA 13
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64; 76 ALJR 79; 185 ALR 233

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nicola Romeo (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Boulten SC (Applicant)
Mr F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mr B Cara (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00346218
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 May 2019 (Sentence)

Before:

Blackmore SC DCJ, delivered by Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/00346218

Judgment

PRICE J: Nicola Romeo (“the applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Blackmore SC DCJ (“the judge”) in the District Court on 24 May 2019 for the…

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 Romeo v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Romeo v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 221
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 221
Decision Date: 31 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Romeo v The Queen, the appellant Romeo appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge following a conviction for solicitation to commit murder. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the offence could be classified within the mid-range of objective seriousness, despite there being no conclusive evidence that Romeo was the instigator. Additionally, the court considered the extent of Romeo's involvement in planning the offence and whether his role was sufficiently limited to warrant a different assessment of seriousness.

The court examined the trial judge’s sentencing remarks to ascertain whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It noted that the trial judge had not made a positive finding that Romeo was the instigator of the crime, which affected the assessment of objective seriousness. Furthermore, the court looked at the extent of Romeo’s involvement in the planning stages of the offence and whether this warranted a lower classification of seriousness. The court also compared the case with other similar cases to evaluate if the sentence was disproportionate. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, leading to a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence. The High Court determined that the trial judge's error in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence and the lack of conclusive evidence that Romeo was the instigator warranted a new sentencing hearing. The final orders included a direction for the trial court to reassess the sentence based on a more accurate determination of the objective seriousness, taking into account Romeo’s limited role in the planning of the offence.

Orders