Dimozantos v The Queen

Angelo Stephen Dimozantos was the applicant seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute concerned the appropriate maximum penalty for the offence of incitement to murder in Victoria. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in upholding a sentence based on the premise that the maximum penalty for incitement to murder was the same as for murder itself.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the maximum penalty for incitement to murder in Victoria was, as determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal, life imprisonment (equivalent to the penalty for murder), or whether it was a lesser term, such as 15 years (the maximum penalty for attempted murder) or two years, as contended by the applicant. This involved an interpretation of the relevant Victorian legislation concerning criminal penalties.

The applicant's argument was that historically, the penalty for incitement to murder had not been equated with the penalty for murder. The sentencing judge, and subsequently the Court of Criminal Appeal, had imposed a sentence of 12 years with a minimum of 10 years on the basis that the maximum penalty for incitement to murder was life imprisonment. The applicant contended that this was an error, submitting that the maximum penalty should have been 15 years, aligning with the penalty for attempted murder, or alternatively, two years. The applicant considered this a point of principle of general importance.