Legal Research
Cases
Christodoulou v R

Christodoulou v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 102 15 May 2008

Sentencing

Multiple Offences

Cumulativity and Concurrency

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Christodoulou v R [2008] NSWCCA 102

HEARING DATE(S): 29 April 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA at 1; Grove J at 7; Johnson J at 45

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Multiple offences against family member victims and arresting police - Whether impositions excessive - Whether orders for cumulation and concurrency erroneous - (Per Grove J and Johnson JJ, Campbell JA not deciding) A deliberate self inflicted injury by the offender at the time of arrest not a matter of mitigation

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Alameddine v R [2006] NSWCCA 317
R v Daetz [2003] 139 A Crim R 398
R v Engert [1995] 84 A Crim R 67
R v Haddara [1997] 95 A Crim R 108
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Scognamiglio [1991] 56 A Crim R 81
Sharpe v R [2006] NSWCCA 255

PARTIES: Spiro CHRISTODOULOU - Applicant
REGINA - Respondent/Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2862

COUNSEL: T Molomby SC - Applicant
N Adams - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: J Papas - Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent/Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/0243; 06/21/0244

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ellis DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 13 March 2007

CCA 2007/2862

CAMPBELL JA
GROVE J
JOHNSON J
Thursday 15 May 2008

Spiro CHRISTODOULOU v REGINA

Judgment

1 CAMPBELL JA: I agree with the order proposed by Grove J, and, with one exception, with the reasons he gives. That exception is para 42 of the reasons for judgment.

2 I would prefer to leave undecided whether there are no circumstances at all in which injury or detriment that a criminal causes to himself or herself can operate as a mitigating factor. I can envisage a situation in which an argument might be put that an injury or detriment that a criminal had imposed upon himself or herself should be taken into account in mitigation. For example, if someone’s criminal conduct had caused very serious injury to a family member, and the criminal thereafter spent considerable time and money in seeking to moderate the consequences of his or her action, an argument might be put that that was appropriate to take into account as a mitigating factor. I do not seek at present to foreclose what the appropriate response to such an argument would be, merely to leave open the possibility that it might be made. I would prefer to decide ground 4 on the basis of a more detailed consideration of the facts of the present case.

3 Apart from the matters recorded by Grove J in paras 35 and 36, the only evidence relating to the nature or effect of the applicant’s self-injection with battery acid is a statement in a psychological report that “he received a graft from his right thigh due to necrosis of the arm muscle and tissue area.” There is no indication of the extent of the necrosis.

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 Christodoulou v R

Details

AGLC: Christodoulou v R [2008] NSWCCA 102
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 102
Decision Date: 15 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christodoulou was charged with numerous offences involving family members, including assault, threats, and property damage. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary focus was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant contested the severity of his sentence, arguing it was excessive, and also claimed that the orders for cumulation and concurrency of the sentences were erroneous. The appeal was heard by Grove J, Johnson JJ, and Campbell JA, who did not participate in the decision.

The court examined whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the multiple offences against family members and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. It also considered if the trial judge erred in ordering the sentences to run concurrently and cumulatively. The appellant argued that his self-inflicted injury at the time of arrest should have been a mitigating factor, a contention that the court rejected. The legal issues thus centred on the proportionality of the sentence and the correctness of the cumulation and concurrency orders.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in its judgment, upheld the sentence as appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and did not err in ordering the sentences to run concurrently and cumulatively. The self-inflicted injury at the time of arrest was not deemed a mitigating factor, as the court found it did not sufficiently reduce the appellant's culpability. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

Orders