DPP v Pantazopoulos

[2006] VSC 331

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1580 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

GEORGE PANTAZOPOULOS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 August 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 September 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Pantazopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 331

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Intentionally Causing Serious Injury –Affray – Plea of guilty – young offender – other mitigating factors – 3 years detention in youth training centre.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr T. Walsh	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. D’Arcy	Slades & Parsons Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1. George Pantazopoulos, you have pleaded guilty to two crimes of violence committed at Dandenong on 13 May 2005.  One count is of affray.  The other count is of intentionally causing serious injury to Greg Harrison.

1. One member of the group that you were with that night has pleaded guilty to, and been sentenced for, the murder of Greg Harrison.  Another member is still to stand trial for murder.  Others are still to stand trial for lesser offences.  I have tried to be circumspect in making my findings of fact.  If there are representatives of the media present, they should be alert to the need for care in reporting due to the potential risk of contempt. 

1. Greg Harrison, the man who was injured by you but who was later killed by one or more others, was not known to you.  On the night of 13 May 2005, you were with a group of friends at a bar in Dandenong called Zeine’s.  You were celebrating the engagement of one of your group.  At the same time, Greg Harrison was socialising with four of his friends.  That group of five had been at a nearby hotel.  They left and were walking  along the Princes Highway.  Two of your group left Zeine’s intending to get something to eat and then return.  The two encountered the five.  Hostile words were exchanged.  Then punches were exchanged.  One of your two friends rushed into Zeine’s and proclaimed that the two of them had been attacked.  The reaction of you and your friends was to set out to find and deal with whoever had been responsible for the attack.

1. After a preliminary search on foot, you went to your van intending to carry out a more extensive search.  A member of your group located Greg Harrison and chased him into an enclosed garden area adjoining a block of flats.  You went to that location.  There, you joined in what proved to be the first of two attacks on Greg Harrison.  Only two of your group, not including you, joined in the second attack.  One of those two has pleaded guilty to murder.  The other is still to stand trial.  In the first attack, Greg Harrison was punched and kicked by you and several others in your group.  There are differences in the accounts of those who witnessed that first attack.  You were not the first to punch or kick Greg Harrison. You may have been the last.  It has not been thought necessary for me to hear oral testimony with a view to making a precise finding.  I am proceeding on the basis that you did not materially go beyond what others did in that first attack.  The result of the attack was to leave Greg Harrison at best semi-conscious and clearly substantially incapacitated.  He was in that vulnerable state when the second attack took place.  That was some time after your group left, when two members of the group chose to return.  As a result of injuries inflicted in that second attack, Greg Harrison died.

1. I have had regard to a number of victim impact statements.  One such statement, the focus of which was not so clearly on his death, was read out in court on your plea hearing.  Most were prepared prior to the sentencing of the member of your group who earlier pleaded guilty to the murder of Greg Harrison. Understandably they tend to focus on his death, for which you are not to be sentenced.  But the fact that his death occurred after your actions which, along with the actions of others, made Greg Harrison more vulnerable must be seen as part of the context in which your crimes fall to be assessed.

1. These were serious crimes. You and your friends appointed yourselves a vigilante group.  You chose not to call in the police.  You chose to take the law into your own hands. It is euphemistic to describe what you did as just misguided loyalty.  Your actions call for strong denunciation.  General deterrence must play a significant part in the sentence that is imposed.

1. I turn to your background.  You were born in October 1985.  That means that you are due to turn 21 next month.  You are an only child of law-abiding parents.  Your parents are very supportive of you.  You have had no court appearances for matters arising before this night. You have done well in your studies. You have been an accomplished soccer player, and have not come under notice for disciplinary matters in that field.  More details of your background are contained in the medical and psychological reports tendered on the plea.

1. There are a number of mitigating factors that operate in your favour.  To the fore in that respect are your youth and your plea of guilty.  Also of significance are three more.  You have shown significant remorse.  You co-operated with the police in their investigations.  You have very good prospects of rehabilitation.

1. Mr Walsh, who appeared on the plea to prosecute, indicated to me then that a sentence of three years in a youth training centre was seen to be at the bottom, but within the range, of appropriate sentences. I indicated on the plea hearing that I proposed to seek a report as to the appropriateness of that course. I have received a report prepared by Gene Bell and endorsed by Stephen Riordan, Courts Advice Officer and Manager respectively, at the Juvenile Justice section of the Melbourne Central Courts Unit. The report is to the effect that you meet all of the criteria stipulated in Section 32 of the SentencingAct 1991, and that you are considered a suitable candidate for an order under that section.

1. On the count of intentionally causing serious injury, I order that you be detained for three years in a Youth Training Centre pursuant to s.32 Sentencing Act 1991. On the count of affray, I order that you be so detained for a period of three months concurrent with the period ordered on the first count. I declare, pursuant to s.35 of that Act, that the period of 3 days which you have already served in detention, be taken into account as a period of detention already served under the sentence. I direct that that be noted in the court record. There being no objection, I have signed the order under S. 464ZF of the Crimes Act as to the retention of the blood sample.