SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
RICHARD MICHAEL RUBINO v THE QUEEN
Citation:
[2015] ACTCA 22
Hearing Date(s):
7 November 2014
DecisionDate:
28 May 2015
Before:
Refshauge, Burns and Ross JJ
Decision:
That the appeal be dismissed
Category:
Principal Judgment
Catchwords:
APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Appeal against sentence Aggravated burglary – Theft – Breach of a Good Behaviour Order – Sentence manifestly excessive – Assistance provided to police – Parity
1. I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for Ross J. I agree with the order his Honour proposes and the reasons for it.
I certify that the preceding one [1] numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Refshauge.
Associate:
Date: 26 May 2015
ROSS J:
2. On 24 September 2013 the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary and one count of theft relating to four separate incidents which took place between 15 November 2010 and 26 February 2011. The circumstances of aggravation in each count of aggravated burglary was that the offence was committed in company. In each case the appellant was present with a co-offender, Mr Robertson, and an unknown third person, although it is not clear whether it was the same unknown person in each instance. On 16 December 2013 Murrell CJ sentenced the appellant to 7 years and 11 months imprisonment with a nonparole period of 4 years and 1 month. The appellant has appealed her Honour’s sentence and this decision deals with that appeal.
3. The facts are set out in her Honour’s sentencing remarks and are not in dispute. The first aggravated burglary offence…
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 Rubino v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22
Case
[2015] ACTCA 22
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Rubino v The Queen* concerned a sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated burglary, theft, and breach of a good behaviour order. The appeal was heard by Refshauge, Burns and Ross JJ of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the assistance the respondent had provided to the police and considerations of parity with other offenders.
The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds on which an appellate court will interfere with a sentencing judge's discretion. It weighed the objective seriousness of the offences against mitigating factors such as the respondent's cooperation with authorities and the need for consistency in sentencing. The Court ultimately found that the sentence was not demonstrably excessive when all relevant factors were taken into account.