DPP v Karipis - [2005] VSCA 119

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 6 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
STEVEN ANDREW KARIPIS

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY, EAMES and NETTLE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2005
DATE OF REASONS:	13 May 2005
DATE OF ORDERS:	1 June 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 119

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Crown appeal - Three separate incidents of aggravated burglary, armed robbery and other offences, including intentionally causing serious injury - Respondent aged 17 and 18 at time of offences - Three years' detention in a youth training centre manifestly inadequate notwithstanding youth and mitigating factors - Four-and-a-half-years' imprisonment with non-parole period of two years substituted - Children and Young Persons Act 1989, s.244 - Sentencing Act 1991, s.89(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. with Mrs C.M. Quin	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.G. Priest, Q.C. with Mr G.F. Meredith	Dowling McGregor Thomas

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

The respondent, who is now aged 20, pleaded guilty in the County Court to a presentment containing 12 counts. They related to three separate incidents: first at Warrandyte on 28^th January 2003 (counts 1 to 3), when the respondent was aged 17; then at Cheltenham on 17^th May 2003 (counts 4 to 7), by which stage he had turned 18; and then at Springvale and Dingley on 16^th and 17^th January 2004 (counts 8 to 12), when he was still 18. They comprised three counts of aggravated burglary (counts 1, 4 and 8), three counts of armed robbery (counts 2, 5 and 9), one count of intentionally causing serious injury (count 3), one count of intentionally causing injury (count 6), one count of theft (count 7), one count of false imprisonment (count 10), one count of common assault (count 11) and one count of handling stolen goods (count 12). The maximum custodial penalties for those offences vary but, importantly, they are 25 years' imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery and 20 years' imprisonment for intentionally causing serious injury.

The respondent admitted one finding of guilt in the Children’s Court and six previous convictions in the Magistrates' Court from three court appearances between October 2000 and September 2003. They included one charge of theft, one charge of intentionally causing injury and one count of assault in company. The last appearance resulted in a community-based order. There were also subsequent convictions to be considered. On 29^th June 2004 the respondent was again convicted of intentionally causing injury and assault in company, as well as traffic offences. That breached the community-based order and, on 26^th July 2004, he was dealt with for the offences the subject of that order, together with two charges of burglary, two charges of theft and one charge of criminal damage. He was sentenced to six months' detention in a youth training centre.

After hearing a plea for leniency on his behalf, the learned judge…

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 DPP v Karipis

Details

AGLC: DPP v Karipis [2005] VSCA 119
Case: [2005] VSCA 119
Decision Date: 13 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Karipis, the respondent, who was 17 and 18 years old at the time of the incidents, was found guilty of multiple offences including aggravated burglary, armed robbery, and intentionally causing serious injury. The respondent was sentenced to three years' detention in a youth training centre, a sentence which the Crown appealed as manifestly inadequate. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate given the severity of the crimes and the respondent's age and mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles in sentencing the respondent, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed, particularly given the respondent's age and the nature of the offences. The court needed to weigh the severity of the offences against the respondent's age and other mitigating factors, and consider whether the original sentence was appropriate under the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and the Sentencing Act 1991.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the seriousness of the crimes and the impact on the victims, and that the sentence of three years' detention was manifestly inadequate. The court substituted a sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offences and to provide adequate deterrence and protection to the community. The court concluded that the original sentence did not meet these objectives, and that a longer sentence was necessary to appropriately address the respondent's criminal conduct.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence of three years' detention was set aside, and a sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, was substituted. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences and provide adequate deterrence and protection to the community, while also considering the age and mitigating factors of the offender.

Orders