SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
Kourpanidis v The Queen
Citation:
[2022] ACTCA 11
Hearing Date:
15 February 2022
DecisionDate:
17 March 2022
Before:
Mossop and Abraham JJ and Walmsley AJ
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed
Catchwords:
APPEAL – SENTENCE – Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering whether the offence was committed by the appellant in circumstances of provocation – whether the sentencing judge erred in considering the objective seriousness of the offence – whether the sentencing judge erred in taking account reasons for leniency only in determining the nonparole period – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – no error established – appeal dismissed
On 3 June 2021, after pleading guilty to the offence of manslaughter, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for…
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 Kourpanidis v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kourpanidis v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 11
Case
[2022] ACTCA 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Mossop and Abraham JJ and Walmsley AJ, heard an appeal by Kerry Kourpanidis against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the ACT. The appellant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The appeal concerned four grounds: that the sentencing judge erred in considering provocation, in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, in limiting reasons for leniency to the non-parole period, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the sentencing judge had made errors of principle in considering the appellant's provocation and the objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence. Specifically, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred in finding the offence constituted "vigilante conduct" without sufficient proof of premeditation, and that the judge had focused on the time for reflection rather than the appellant's actual state of mind regarding provocation. The appellant also contended that if provocation had been given greater weight, the objective seriousness of the offence would have been assessed as low.
The Court of Appeal found that the grounds of appeal were not established. It held that the sentencing remarks should be read as a whole and that the appellant's submissions often involved a misreading of those remarks or took passages out of context. The Court noted that appellate courts are generally bound by the findings of fact made by the primary judge unless those findings were not open on the evidence. Regarding the assessment of objective seriousness, the Court found that the sentencing judge's conclusion that the offence was not of low objective seriousness was not solely based on the finding as to provocation, but followed from a rejection of the appellant's submissions on that point. The Court also observed that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's submissions regarding provocation and had concluded that it did not significantly reduce the appellant's moral culpability.