No challenge in jail push

By KATH GANNAWAY
THE prosecution lawyer arguing for a jail sentence for Healesville man Leslie James Maffescioni moved to assure County Court Judge Julie Nicholson that the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) was not using the case to challenge new sentencing laws.
Maffescioni, 44, pleaded guilty in November 2011 to aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury and criminal damage in relation to a serious assault in Healesville in August 2011.
He has since appeared five times before Judge Nicholson for sentencing with OPP lawyer Amina Bhai calling each time for a custodial sentence of three to four years with a non-parole period of 12 to 18 months.
The maximum penalties for the offences are 25 years for aggravated burglary, 10 years for intentionally causing injury and 10 years for criminal damage.
Ms Bhai has maintained throughout the case that a suspended sentence is not available to Judge Nicholson under amended legislation for serious offences including aggravated burglary.
On Friday 27 April, Maffescioni’s defence lawyer Ian Crisp called for a Community Corrections Order for his client arguing that he has resumed a relationship with and has the support of the victim, continues to have the support of his employer, is regularly attending anger management and is “staying away from alcohol”.
Judge Nicholson said there were a number of draconian and punitive conditions she could attach to a CCO including home detention and conditions around alcohol consumption.
“If those types of conditions were imposed in relation to a lengthy CCO, as well as a significant unpaid community work component, what does the Crown submit?” Judge Nicholson asked Ms Bhai.
Ms Bhai said the prosecution range remained the same as in the previous four plea hearings, adding “Clearly, Your Honour has discretion when sentencing, but (there are) also the fundamentals of deterrence, denunciation and rehabilitation … this is not a situation where we have a young offender.
“Taking into account the need for deterrence and denunciation of the act, the appropriate range is a term of imprisonment,” Ms Bhai reitterated.
“This is not a case that the Crown has ever submitted to Your Honour that there was a challenge to the current sentencing laws,” she added.
Judge Nicholson said the matter had been “very punctuated” through no fault of the parties or the accused but said unexpected court listings on the day again meant the matter would again have to be adjourned.
“I seem to recall that I suggested maybe a deferral of sentencing in this matter and it has effectively happened in practice,” she added.
The matter will return to court for sentencing at 10.30am on 18 May.