Legal Research
Cases
Salapura v The Queen

Salapura v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 255 8 October 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0017

STEVAN SALAPURA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 October 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 255
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Salapura [2017] VCC 1914 (Judge Grant)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – One charge of possessing firearm while a prohibited person, one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of causing serious injury recklessly – Total effective sentence of 7 years, 9 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 5 years, 9 months – Whether applicant doubly punished for possessing loaded firearm – Whether production of loaded firearm after entry into building relevant to aggravated burglary charge – Whether parity principle infringed – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P J Smallwood	Doogue & George Defence Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA
KYROU JA:

Introduction and summary

The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges set out in the table below and, on 15 December 2017, he was sentenced by a County Court judge as set out in that table.[1]
[1]DPP v Salapura [2017] VCC 1914 (‘Sentencing remarks’).

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1
Possessing a firearm while a prohibited person

[Firearms Act1996 s 5(1)]
10 years 3 years 9 months

2
Aggravated burglary

[Crimes Act1958 s 77(1)]
25 years
4 years,

6 months
2 years

3 Causing serious injury recklessly [Crimes Act s 17] 15 years 5 years Base

Summary charge

2
Possession of cartridge ammunition without a licence

[Firearms Act s 124(1)]

40 penalty units
$2,500 fine -

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years, 9 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 5 years, 9 months

Pre-Sentence Detention Declaration: 514 days

6AAA Statement: 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years

The applicant’s co-offender, Stephen Spiteri, was sentenced on the same day by the same judge as follows:[2]
[2]See Spiteri v The Queen [2018] VSCA 254.

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Possessing a firearm while a prohibited person 10 years
2 years,

3 months
6 months

2 Aggravated burglary
25 years

4 years,

6 months
Base

Summary charges

3 Possession of cartridge ammunition without a licence 40 penalty units $2,500 fine -

4 Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime [Crimes Act s 195] 2 years 6 months -

5
Committing an indictable offence while on bail

[Bail Act1977 s 30B]

3 months
2 months -

Total Effective Sentence: 5 years’ imprisonment[3]
[3]At the time of sentencing, Spiteri was already serving a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment for prior offences of aggravated burglary and assaulting a police officer. Applying the principle of totality, the judge ordered that only part of the sentence imposed on Spiteri be served cumulatively on the prior sentence, producing a combined total effective sentence of…

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 Salapura v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Salapura v The Queen [2018] VSCA 255
Case: [2018] VSCA 255
Decision Date: 8 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for possessing a firearm while being a prohibited person, aggravated burglary, and causing serious injury recklessly. He appealed against the totality of the sentence, claiming that the trial judge had doubly punished him for possessing the loaded firearm and that the production of the loaded firearm after entering the building was not relevant to the aggravated burglary charge. The appellant also argued that the parity principle was infringed because the sentence for possessing the firearm was greater than the sentence for causing serious injury recklessly. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues in this case were whether the appellant was doubly punished for possessing the loaded firearm, whether the production of the loaded firearm after entering the building was relevant to the aggravated burglary charge, and whether the parity principle was infringed. The court had to determine whether the appellant's sentence was just and whether it complied with the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1992 (Vic).

The court held that the appellant was not doubly punished for possessing the loaded firearm because the trial judge had considered the factors relevant to each offence when imposing the sentence. The court also held that the production of the loaded firearm after entering the building was relevant to the aggravated burglary charge because it contributed to the danger and violence of the crime. Furthermore, the court held that the parity principle was not infringed because the sentence for possessing the firearm was not greater than the sentence for causing serious injury recklessly, but rather reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The High Court of Australia refused the appellant leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant's application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 7 years, 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, 9 months was upheld.

Orders