Tramontano v The Queen [2002] NTCCA 4
PARTIES:PIETRO TRAMONTANO
v
THE QUEEN
TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:No. CA5 of 2001 (9924449)
DELIVERED: 17 May 2002
HEARING DATES: 22 March 2002
JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Appeal – Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether medical condition to be considered in sentencing – whether sentencing Judge erred in applying guidelines in R v Wong.
Statutes:
Crimes Act, s 16.
Criminal Code, s 411
Cases cited:
Cranssen v the King (1936) 55 CLR 509 at 519-520, referred to.
Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465, referred to.
Huang (2000) 113 A Crim R 386 at 391, referred to.
Leroy (1984) NSWLR 441 at 446-7, referred to.
Ngui v Tiong (2000) 111 A Crim R 593 at 596, referred to.
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231, referred to.
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 382-385, referred to.
R v Klein [2001] NSWCCA 120 at para [24] referred to.
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, referred to.
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 at 589, referred to.
R v Su and Ors (1997) 1 VR 1 at 75, referred to.
R v Tsiaras (1996) 1 VR 398 at 400, referred to.
R v Warfield (1994) 34 NSWLR 200 at 203, referred to.
R v Wong; R v Leung (1999) 48 NSWLR 340 (1999) 108 A Crim R 531, referred to.
Ragggett, Douglas & Miller (1990) 50 A Crim R 41 at 47, referred to.
Salmon v Chute & Anor (1994) 94 NTR 1, referred to.
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-88) 164 CLR 465 at 477-8, followed.
Waye v The Queen (2000) 3 NTJ 1567, refered to.
Wong v The Queen (2002) 185 ALR 233, followed.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I. Rowbottam
Respondent: P. Strickland
Solicitors:
Appellant:I. Rowbottam
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0210
Number of pages: 35
ril0210
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWINTramontano v The Queen [2002] NTCCA 4
No. CA5 of 2001 (9924449)
BETWEEN:
PIETRO TRAMONTANO
Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN
Respondent
CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 May 2002)
MARTIN CJ:
I have had the advantage of the draft judgments prepared by each of Justices Mildren and Riley. With the exception of the ground of appeal relating to the learned trial Judge's reference to the guideline published by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, there is nothing I would wish to add. Otherwise, I agree with them.
As to the guideline, it should be noted that although it was accepted as being irrelevant to the ultimate decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, it would have been relevant in this case had it not been overruled by the majority…
Continue reading Tramontano v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tramontano v The Queen [2002] NTCCA 4
- Case
- [2002] NTCCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the non-parole period and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal also raised questions regarding the consideration of a medical condition during sentencing and the application of sentencing guidelines, specifically those in *R v Wong*.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had erred in the application of sentencing principles. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the Court determined that there were factors warranting a reduction in the non-parole period. The Court proposed a revised sentence of six years imprisonment for the cocaine importation, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the heroin importation. A non-parole period of three years and two months was fixed, with the sentences deemed to have commenced from 22 October 1999 to account for time already served in custody.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.