Director of Public Prosecutions v Giannoukas

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant, Giannoukas, who had been convicted of recklessly causing serious injury. The incident involved the appellant striking the complainant with a glass bottle in response to a threat made by the complainant. The appellant expressed remorse and had no prior convictions. The County Court of Victoria imposed a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years, which the Crown considered manifestly inadequate. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge had erred in deciding to wholly suspend the sentence before determining an appropriate term of imprisonment.

The court considered the principles of appellate intervention in sentencing, noting that leave to appeal should be granted where the sentence was outside the range of sentences reasonably available. It was established that the appellant's actions were serious, given the nature of the weapon used and the risk of serious injury it posed. The court highlighted the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence and provide adequate deterrence. The court examined the sentencing judge’s reasoning and found that while the judge had considered the relevant factors, the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, was manifestly inadequate given the circumstances. The court further noted that the sentence should not have been wholly suspended before determining an appropriate term of imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended. The court considered the principles set out in Winch v The Queen and concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and failed to provide sufficient deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed are within the range of sentences reasonably available, taking into account the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The final orders included the re-sentencing of the appellant and the directions for the re-sentencing to be carried out by the County Court of Victoria.