Trotta v Police

The case of Trotta v Police involved the appellant appealing against the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The appellant was convicted of 23 offences committed while on a good behaviour bond, for which he pleaded guilty. The sentence imposed by the magistrate was 32 months and two weeks imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 months, and an order to pay $2,842.96 compensation. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the magistrate should have reduced the sentence for time spent in custody, whether the sentence should have been reduced for the guilty pleas, whether the sentence should have been reduced for the compensation orders, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentences should have been concurrent rather than cumulative.

The court found that the magistrate should have reduced the sentence to reflect the time spent in custody and the guilty pleas. The court found that the magistrate had not sufficiently reduced the sentence for the guilty pleas and the time spent in custody. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentences should have been concurrent rather than cumulative. The court found that the magistrate did not err in failing to reduce the sentence as a result of the totality principle.

The court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant to 26 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months and ordered him to pay $2,842.96 compensation. The court also disqualified the appellant from driving for four months, commencing on 15 December 2007. Three months of this disqualification related to the offence of driving without due care and the other month related to the offence of driving uninsured.