Christianos v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 184


CHRISTIANOS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 184



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 184
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:200/19993 MARCH 2000
Coram:KENNEDY J
PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
27/07/00
16Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:CHRISTOS CHRISTIANOS
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Sentencing
One count of conspiring to cultivate cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, one charge of escaping legal custody
Sentence of 7 years in relation to conspiracy and 9 months in relation to escaping legal custody, to be served cumulatively
Co-conspirator sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment
Whether requirement for parity
Whether sentences otherwise excessive

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 33, s 34

Case References:

Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Cox (1996) 66 SASR 152
R v Knight (1986) 40 SASR 479
R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v Storey[1998] 1 VR 359
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Delaney v Van Arkel, unreported; SCt of WA (Steytler J); Library No 950176; 13 April 1995
Douglas v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 940035; 27 January 1994
Ficara v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930529; 30 September 1993
Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Rowland J); Library No 920652; 7 December 1992
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nicoletti v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970578; 4 November 1997
Pizzata v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930596; 29 October 1993
R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397
R v Raptis (1988) 36 A Crim R 362
R v Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
R v Vasich (1998) 99 A Crim R 262
R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Scaffidi v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970166; 18 April 1997
Siganto v R (1998) 159 ALR 94
Taylor v Kenny, unreported; SCt of WA (White J); Library No 950247; 23 May 1995

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CHRISTIANOS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 184 CORAM : KENNEDY J
    PIDGEON J
    WALLWORK J
HEARD : 3 MARCH 2000 DELIVERED : 27 JULY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA…

Continue reading Christianos v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Christianos v The Queen [2000] WASCA 184
Case
[2000] WASCA 184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Christianos, appealed against his sentence for conspiring to cultivate cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another person, as well as for escaping legal custody. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a requirement for parity between the sentences of co-conspirators, and if the sentences imposed were otherwise excessive. Christianos argued that the disparity in his sentence compared to his co-conspirator's sentence of 5 years for the same offences was unjust, and that the cumulative sentences of 7 years for the conspiracy and 9 months for escaping legal custody were excessive.

The court considered the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that co-conspirators receive similar sentences unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a difference. However, the court found that there were no such circumstances in this case. The court also examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Christianos's role in them, and the need for deterrence and retribution. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentences were not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.