KAROLIDES -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 330

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 330
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:213/1998	Heard:	9 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J OWEN J HEENAN J	Delivered:	3/11/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for extension of time granted Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL CHRISTOPHER KAROLIDES THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Assault by prisoner on prison officers Terms of one year and two years cumulative upon each other and upon current sentence 23-year-old offender serving 11-1/2 year sentence Six years yet to serve Offences forming one episode of rebellious conduct Totality principle
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bowman v The Queen (1993) 69 A Crim R 530 Abbott & Ors v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7814; 1 September 1989 Cox v Whitehead & Ors [1999] WASCA 277 Cunningham v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 4003; 4 December 1980 Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Delacey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7687; 31 May 1989 Dhu v Ward [2000] WASCA 140 Director of Public Prosecutions v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664 Farmer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940075; 16 February 1994 Green v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950592; 8 November 1995 King v Power, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930289; 27 May 1993 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127 R v Lippiatt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980065; 17 February 1998 Schneidas v The Queen (No 1) (1981) 4 A Crim R 95 Spiteri v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930209; 8 April 1993 Symonds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998 Warrell v Kay (1995) 83 A Crim R 493 Yanko v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KAROLIDES -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 330 CORAM : IPP J

OWEN J

HEENAN J

HEARD : 9 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 213 of 1998

CCA 243 of 1999

BETWEEN : PAUL CHRISTOPHER KAROLIDES

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Assault by prisoner on prison officers - Terms of one year and two years cumulative upon each other and upon current sentence - 23-year-old offender serving 11-1/2 year sentence - Six years yet to serve - Offences forming one episode of rebellious conduct - Totality principle

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant…

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 Karolides v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Karolides v The Queen [2000] WASCA 330
Case: [2000] WASCA 330
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court concerned a 23-year-old offender who had been sentenced to one year and two years imprisonment, each term cumulative upon each other and upon his current sentence, for assaulting prison officers. The appellant, Karolides, was already serving an 11-and-a-half-year sentence for various offences and had six years remaining to serve. The offences in question were deemed to form one episode of rebellious conduct. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, applying the totality principle in criminal sentencing.

The primary legal issue revolved around the application of the totality principle in sentencing. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the cumulative sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively to the current sentence, and if the totality principle could be invoked to mitigate the harshness of the cumulative sentences. The appellant argued that the sentences should be served concurrently to avoid exacerbating an already lengthy sentence, while the Crown contended that the cumulative nature of the sentences reflected the seriousness of the conduct.

In allowing the appeal, the court held that the totality principle should be applied in sentencing. The court recognised that the offences formed one episode of rebellious conduct and that the cumulative sentences should not exacerbate an already lengthy sentence. The court found that the sentences should run concurrently to the current sentence, thereby mitigating the overall term of imprisonment. The court concluded that the totality principle was applicable and that the cumulative sentences should be served concurrently to avoid imposing an unduly harsh sentence on the appellant.

Consequently, the court granted the application for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal and allowed the appeal. The sentences of one year and two years were ordered to run concurrently to the current sentence, resulting in an overall reduction in the term of imprisonment for the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.