Legal Research
Cases
Valenti v The Queen

Valenti v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 17 26 February 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Valenti v R [2016] NSWCCA 17
Hearing dates: 3 February 2016
Date of orders: 26 February 2016
Decision date: 26 February 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL   at [1]
Davies J   at [2]
Beech-Jones J   at [13]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted.
(2)   Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – supply of prohibited drug – supply of cocaine in nightclub – intensive correction orders – whether ICO manifestly excessive.
Legislation Cited: - Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s 81(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 5(1), s 7(1), s 10
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25(1)
Cases Cited: - Douar v R [2005] NSWCCA 455
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
- Knight v R [2015] NSWCCA 222
- Martin v R [2013] NSWCCA 24
- R v Chidiac [2015] NSWCCA 241
- R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225
- R v Tannous; R v Fahda; R v Dibb [2012] NSWCCA 243
- R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
- Turkmani v R [2014] NSCCA 186
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Leonard Valenti – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
M. Ramage QC – Applicant
Ms S. Herbert – Crown
Solicitors:
Katsoolis & Co – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent

File Number(s): 2014/014285
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Sydney District Court

Date of Decision:

02 April 2015

Before:

King DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/014285

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Beech-Jones J.
DAVIES J: I have read the judgment of Beech-Jones J. I agree with the orders his Honour proposes and, subject to what follows, with his Honour's reasons for those orders. What follows are observations concerning Grounds 1, 2 and 3,
Justice Beech-Jones discusses at [29]-[32] the procedure that needs to be adopted where a sentencing judge proposes to refer an offender for assessment as to their suitability for an Intensive Correction Order.
As Beech-Jones J noted at [32], the procedure for imposition of an ICO has the effect that the sentencing judge will often record the reaching of the conclusion that no alternative to full time imprisonment is warranted at an earlier point, being prior to the referral of an offender for an assessment. However, there is another matter which needs to be determined and recorded at that point, namely, the length of the sentence. As has been made clear in Zamagias at [23]-[32] and by Johnson J in Douar at [70]-[72] the second step of determining the length of the sentence is to be made without regard to the manner in which the sentence is to be served. Once the length of the sentence has been determined the Court is to consider whether any alternative to full time imprisonment is available in respect of that term and whether any available alternative should be utilised.

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 Valenti v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Valenti v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 17
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 17
Decision Date: 26 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Valenti v The Queen, the appellant, Mr Valenti, was convicted for the supply of a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine, within a nightclub setting. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that the intensive correction order (ICO) awarded to him was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the ICO imposed on Mr Valenti was manifestly excessive in the context of the crime committed. This required a thorough examination of the principles governing the imposition of ICOs and an assessment of the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court also considered the sentencing principles set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), particularly the need to balance the deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation of the offender.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented in the case, including the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact of the crime on the community. It also considered the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to the imposition of the sentence. Ultimately, the court found that the ICO was not manifestly excessive. It affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasising the importance of maintaining the deterrent effect of the sentence while also considering the rehabilitative potential of the ICO. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The intensive correction order imposed by the lower court remained in place.

Orders