Christoforou v The King - [2024] VSCA 89

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0110
S EAPCR 2023 0185

JAMES CHRISTOFOROU	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 April 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 May 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 89
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Christoforou (County Court of Victoria, Judge Gaynor, 3 April 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applicant pleaded guilty to burglary, theft and handling stolen goods – Four police charges purportedly transferred to County Court as summary offences – Two police charges indictable offences triable summarily – Charges not properly before County Court – Leave to appeal granted – Convictions quashed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Whether sentences on certain individual charges and associated orders for cumulation manifestly excessive – Sentences not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal granted consequent on successful conviction appeal – Applicant resentenced.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 28, 145, 242.

DPP v Goldsmid [2023] VSCA 124 applied; Hoy v The Queen [2012] VSCA 49 considered.

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr R Nathwani SC and Mr L Cameron
Respondent/s:		Mr M Stanton
Solicitors
Applicants:	SLKQ Lawyers
Respondent/s:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NIALL JA
TAYLOR JA:

Introduction and overview

On 22 February 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary (13 charges), theft (13 charges), attempted burglary, handling stolen goods and possession of a drug of dependence. Four police charges were also before the court. On 3 April 2023 the applicant was sentenced as follows.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Burglary[1]	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
2	Theft[2]	10 years’ imprisonment	2 months’ imprisonment	N/A
3	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
4	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
5	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
6	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
7	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
8	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment	6 months
9	Attempted Burglary[3]	5 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
10	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
11	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
12	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
13	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
14	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
15	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
16	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
17	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
18	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
19	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	9 months’ imprisonment	1 month
20	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
21	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
22	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	2 months
23	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	9 months’ imprisonment	1 month
24	Burglary	10 years’ imprisonment

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 Christoforou v The King

Details

AGLC: Christoforou v The King [2024] VSCA 89
Case: [2024] VSCA 89
Decision Date: 8 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Christoforou, appealed against his convictions and sentences following a guilty plea to charges of burglary, theft, and handling stolen goods. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which granted leave for the appeal on both the conviction and sentence grounds. The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the charges were properly before the County Court and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court first addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding the charges. It concluded that the four police charges were not properly before the County Court as summary offences, as two of them were indictable offences that could only be tried summarily under specific circumstances. This finding led to the quashing of the convictions related to those charges. In terms of the sentences, the court found that while the sentences on certain individual charges were not manifestly excessive, the overall cumulation of sentences was considered excessive given the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal on the sentence grounds and ordered that the applicant be resentenced.

The Supreme Court's decision was grounded in statutory interpretation and case law, particularly referencing the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and precedents such as DPP v Goldsmid and Hoy v The Queen. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and legal principles that govern criminal proceedings and sentencing. The final orders of the court included the quashing of certain convictions and the resentencing of the applicant.

In summary, the court found that the applicant's convictions on two police charges were not properly before the County Court, leading to their quashing. The court also found the sentences to not be manifestly excessive but ordered a resentencing due to the cumulation of sentences. This decision highlights the importance of jurisdictional accuracy and the need for proportionality in sentencing.

Orders