Koukakis v The King - [2025] VSCA 12

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0160

ILIAS KOUKAKIS	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	T FORREST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 February 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 12
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 1293 (Judge Marich)

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO s 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Co-accused of armed robbery – Whether judge erred in classifying gravity of armed robbery offence – Offending was objectively grave – No error – Application for leave to appeal is refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Applicant pled guilty to one charge of drug trafficking and one of armed robbery – Total effective sentence 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – Sentence and non-parole period balanced the objective gravity and mitigatory factors – Not reasonably arguable that sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal is refused.

Almatrah v The King [2024] VSCA 301; Brooks (A Pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 4; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Karazisis (2010) 31 VR 634; Lai v R [2023] VSCA 151; Young v The Queen [2016] VSCA 149, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J Barreiro
Respondent:		Mr L Andrews
Solicitors
Applicant:	Stary Norton Halphen
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

T FORREST JA:

On 22 March 2024, the applicant (Ilias Koukakis) pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of attempting to traffick methylamphetamine[1] and one charge of armed robbery.[2] Following a plea in mitigation, on 5 August 2024, the applicant was sentenced as follows:
[1]Contrary to 71AC(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.
[2]Contrary to s 75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

Charge on indictment

Offence

Maximum Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Attempt to traffick methylamphetamine 15 years’ imprisonment 3 months’ imprisonment N/A

2 Armed robbery 25 years’ imprisonment 26 months’ imprisonment Base

Total Effective Sentence: 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 15 months’ imprisonment

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 7 days

Section 6AAA Statement: 3 years’ imprisonment

Other relevant orders Relevant property be forfeited to the Minister.

The co-accused to the armed robbery offence (Mario Salatas) had been sentenced on 9 May 2024 as follows:

Charge on indictment

Offence

Maximum Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Armed robbery 25 years’ imprisonment 3 years’ imprisonment Base

2 Causing injury intentionally[3] 10 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment -

3 Prohibited person – possess imitation firearm[4] 10 years’ imprisonment 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment 12 months

Total Effective Sentence: 4 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 412 days

Section 6AAA Statement: 6 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years

Other relevant orders N/A
[3]Contrary…

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 Koukakis v The King

Details

AGLC: Koukakis v The King [2025] VSCA 12
Case: [2025] VSCA 12
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koukakis applied for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and armed robbery. The Supreme Court of Victoria heard his application. Koukakis argued that the trial judge erred in classifying the gravity of the armed robbery offence and that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The key legal issue was whether the trial judge made an error in assessing the gravity of the armed robbery and if the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering both the objective gravity of the crimes and the mitigating factors.

The court found that the trial judge correctly assessed the gravity of the armed robbery offence, which was objectively grave. It was not reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in this regard. The court also held that the sentence and the non-parole period were balanced against the objective gravity of the crimes and the mitigating factors. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

In reaching its decision, the court referred to several precedents, including Almatrah v The King, Brooks (A Pseudonym) v The King, Clarkson v The Queen, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Karazisis, Lai v R, and Young v The Queen. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The non-parole period was also reasonable and balanced the competing considerations.

The final orders of the court were that Koukakis' application for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence was refused.

Orders