Karpatsis v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 111

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karpatsis v R [2013] NSWCCA 111
Hearing dates: 24 April 2013
Decision date: 16 May 2013
Before: Latham J at [1]; Button J at [2]; Barr AJ at [3]
Decision:
1. Grant Leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW: sentence appeal- whether sentence excessive
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Spiros Karpatsis (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Self-Represented (Applicant)
N Adams SC (Respondent)
J Davidson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Spiros Karpatsis (Self-Represented)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/154012
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2011-05-16 00:00:00

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/154012

Judgment

Latham J: I agree with Barr AJ

Button J: I agree with Barr AJ.

BARR AJ: The applicant, Spiros Karpatsis, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. The applicant, who had for years been devoted to the use of illicit substances, committed a number of thefts in May and June 2010. He did so to raise money to buy drugs. He was on parole at the time, having being released on 18 May 2010 after serving the greater part of a six year sentence for robbery armed with an offensive weapon. The several offences may be summarised as follows.

Count 1: Between 19 and 20 June 2010 the applicant took and drove a conveyance without the owner's consent. The maximum penalty was imprisonment for five years.

Count 2: On 19 June 2010 the applicant broke and entered Chemmart Pharmacy, Kingsgrove and stole drugs worth $362 and caused damage to the premises that cost $600 to repair. The maximum penalty for that offence was 14 years' imprisonment.

Count 3: On 20 June 2010 the applicant broke and entered Woolworths at Marrickville and stole cigarettes worth $11,872. The maximum penalty was 14 years' imprisonment

Count 4: On 19 June 2010 the applicant broke and entered Michael Hill, Jeweller, at Roselands, and stole jewellery worth $42,753. The maximum penalty was 14 years' imprisonment.

First Form 1: On 18 May 2010 the applicant took and drove a conveyance without the owner's consent.

Second Form 1: On 17 June 2010 the applicant broke and entered Chemmart Pharmacy and stole $1,670 in cash and drugs worth $336 and caused damage to premises worth $650.

Third Form 1:

(1) On 20 June 2010 the applicant broke and entered Flower Power Nursery at Mt Annan and stole a cash register.

(2) On the same day he intentionally destroyed property by ramming the roller door at premises in Rockdale.

(3) On 20 May 2010 he stole property worth $13,617 from Myer, Roselands.

The applicant was arrested on 20 June 2010. On 1 July 2010 his existing parole was revoked. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed for sentence to the District Court. He came for sentence before North DCJ, who imposed the following sentences-

On the first count, and taking into account the offence in the first Form 1,…

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 Karpatsis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Karpatsis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 111
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date: 16 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Karpatsis v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Karpatsis, had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and appealed against the sentence imposed on him, arguing that it was excessive. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and within the range of punishment for the offence. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the objective of punishment, which is to achieve justice for the victim, the community, and the offender. The court also considered the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the law. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court emphasised that the appellate court should not lightly interfere with the sentencing decisions of the trial judge, who is in the best position to assess the facts and circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of punishment for the offence and that the trial judge had given appropriate weight to the aggravating and mitigating factors. The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders