Legal Research
Cases
Everett v The King

Everett v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 96 7 May 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0157

JASON EVERETT	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ORR and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 96
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 325 (Judge Maidment)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Aggravated home invasion – Intentionally cause injury – Extortion – Theft – Whether proper weight given to parity principle in light of sentences imposed on two co-offenders – Whether orders for cumulation reflected overlap in offences – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentences of 15 months, 12 months and 3 months’ imprisonment for theft of laptop, car and car keys, with total of 5 months cumulated, manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed.

Abdirahman v The Queen [2020] VSCA 87; DPP v Wol [2019] VSCA 268; Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; Kellway (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 109; Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr PP Kounnas
Respondent:		Ms DI Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	McNally & Gleeson Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ORR JA
T FORREST JA:

At about 10:30 pm on 11 January 2018, the applicant and two co-offenders forced their way into the home of Saso Stevanovski. The applicant was carrying a torch or taser, and a knife. One of the two co-offenders, Evangelos Bayamis, believed that Mr Stevanovski owed him money. Mr Bayamis had recruited the applicant and the other co-offender, William Thomason, to go with him to Mr Stevanovski’s house to demand the money.
Once inside the house, the applicant struck Mr Stevanovski in the head with the torch or taser, knocking him to the floor. He used the knife to threaten Mr Stevanovski’s partner, who was also in the house. Mr Bayamis threatened to burn Mr Stevanovski and his family if Mr Stevanovski did not pay the money he claimed he was owed. Mr Stevanovski provided his bank account details and his bank card, and Mr Bayamis later withdrew $2,300 from the account. Before leaving the premises, the applicant took Mr Stevanovski’s laptop, as well as a car parked at the property, and the car keys.
The applicant pleaded guilty to stealing the car and car keys. He pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated home invasion, intentionally causing injury, extortion with threat to kill or inflict injury, and theft of Mr Stevanovski’s laptop. He was convicted of each of these charges at trial. Prior to the trial, the applicant had also indicated that he would plead guilty to an alternative charge of recklessly causing injury, but the prosecution rejected that offer and proceeded with the charge of intentionally causing injury.
On 27 February 2024, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Aggravated home invasion[1]

25 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 Everett v The King

Details

AGLC: Everett v The King [2025] VSCA 96
Case: [2025] VSCA 96
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Everett sought leave to appeal against his sentence following his conviction for aggravated home invasion, intentionally causing injury, extortion and theft. The trial judge found Everett to be the leader of a group who committed the offences against a vulnerable person. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge properly applied the principle of parity, in light of the sentences imposed on the two co-offenders. The court was also required to consider whether the orders for cumulation appropriately reflected the overlap in the offences and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the principle of parity was not properly applied because the trial judge did not consider the relative roles of the parties. The sentences imposed on the co-offenders did not give proper weight to Everett’s role as the leader. The Court found that the orders for cumulation did not reflect the overlap in the offences as they were not concurrent but cumulative. The court found that the sentences of 15 months, 12 months and 3 months’ imprisonment for theft of a laptop, car and car keys, with a total of 5 months cumulated, were manifestly excessive. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the County Court for resentencing.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that leave to appeal was granted and the sentences were quashed. The matter was remitted to the County Court to be re-sentenced having regard to the principles set out in the judgment.

Orders