Tartaglia v The Queen
Case
•
[2022] SASCA 41
•5 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tartaglia v The Queen [2022] SASCA 41
[2022] SASCA 41
5 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Tartaglia, for importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. The dispute arose from the appellant's alleged involvement in a joint criminal enterprise with one Blokland to import approximately 18 kilograms of methamphetamine, concealed within winch drums, which arrived in Australia via Adelaide Airport. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The legal issues before the court were whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the appellant's liability for the importation offence under the principles of complicity, specifically joint criminal enterprise, and to assess the appropriateness of the 12-year and two-month sentence with an eight-year and eight-month non-parole period.
The court affirmed the appellant's conviction based on section 11.2A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which establishes liability for conduct committed by a co-offender pursuant to a common intention or agreement. The court reasoned that once the jury was satisfied the appellant had agreed with Blokland to import the methamphetamine and intended its importation, he was equally liable for Blokland's physical actions constituting the offence, irrespective of his direct participation in the physical act of importation. Regarding the sentence, the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment, noting the serious nature of the offence, the significant quantity and street value of the methamphetamine, the sophisticated planning involved, and the need for general deterrence and community protection. The court also considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, which weighed against leniency.
The Full Court granted permission to appeal against conviction on one ground but dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal against sentence was also granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.
The legal issues before the court were whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the appellant's liability for the importation offence under the principles of complicity, specifically joint criminal enterprise, and to assess the appropriateness of the 12-year and two-month sentence with an eight-year and eight-month non-parole period.
The court affirmed the appellant's conviction based on section 11.2A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which establishes liability for conduct committed by a co-offender pursuant to a common intention or agreement. The court reasoned that once the jury was satisfied the appellant had agreed with Blokland to import the methamphetamine and intended its importation, he was equally liable for Blokland's physical actions constituting the offence, irrespective of his direct participation in the physical act of importation. Regarding the sentence, the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment, noting the serious nature of the offence, the significant quantity and street value of the methamphetamine, the sophisticated planning involved, and the need for general deterrence and community protection. The court also considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, which weighed against leniency.
The Full Court granted permission to appeal against conviction on one ground but dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal against sentence was also granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Charge
-
Intention
-
Sentencing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Tartaglia v The Queen [2022] SASCA 41
Most Recent Citation
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Mario Rollo (a pseudonym) [2023] VCC 713
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Ryan v The King
[2022] SASCA 110
High Court Bulletin
[2023] HCAB 2
Juan Manuel Plaza Lopez v The King
[2024] VSCA 265
Cases Cited
41
Statutory Material Cited
1
Fleming v The Queen
[1998] HCA 68
Fleming v The Queen
[1998] HCA 68
Andre Rohan (a pseudonym)[1] v The King
[2022] VSCA 215