Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Stocco, Gino v R; Stocco, Mark v R [2018] NSWCCA 77 Hearing dates: 23 March 2018 Date of orders: 30 April 2018 Decision date: 30 April 2018 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Johnson J at [193]; Schmidt J at [194] Decision: Mark Stocco (1) Leave to appeal in respect of Ground 1 is refused. (2) Leave to appeal is granted in respect of Grounds 2 – 5 but the appeal is dismissed. Gino Stocco (1) Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeals by two co-offenders – counts of murder, arson and two counts of discharge firearm to prevent lawful apprehension – father and son co-offenders – Gino Stocco – whether principles of totality properly taken into account – whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed – Mark Stocco – whether issue of assistance raised in sentence proceedings – whether failure of sentencing judge to properly take assistance into account – whether miscarriage of justice would result if assistance not taken into account – level of assistance overstated – leave to rely upon ground of appeal refused – whether sentencing judge took into account prospects of rehabilitation – whether principles of totality taken into account – application of parity principle – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 18(1)(a), 33A(2)(a), 195(1A)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 21A(3)(h), 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c) Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Barton v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 164 CMB v Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Des Rosiers v R [2006] NSWCCA 16; 159 A Crim R 549 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Goebel-McGregor v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 390 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Ho v R [2013] NSWCCA 174 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Hudd v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 57 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286 Miles v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 266 Mooney v R [2016] NSWCCA 231 Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85 Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242; 219 A Crim R 104 Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Gommeson [2014] NSWCCA 159; 243 A Crim R 534 R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502 R v MAK, R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Michael Kanaan [2006] NSWSC 539 R v XX [2017] NSWCCA 90 Usher v R [2016] NSWCCA 276 ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gino Stocco – Applicant Mark Stocco – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: P McGrath SC – Applicant Gino Stocco C O'Donnell SC – Applicant Mark Stocco T Smith – Respondent Crown