Legal Research
Cases
Ladas v R

Ladas v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 160 22 July 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ladas v R [2022] NSWCCA 160
Hearing dates: 23 May 2022
Date of orders: 22 July 2022
Decision date: 22 July 2022
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]
Wilson J at [6]
Dhanji J at [7]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal is granted.
(2)   The appeal is allowed.
(3)   The sentence imposed on the applicant by Colefax SC DCJ in the District Court on 9 November 2020 is quashed.
(4) In lieu thereof, impose an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and fix:
(a) Pursuant to s 44(2A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) an aggregate sentence of 8 years commencing on 9 March 2020 and expiring on 8 March 2028;
(b)   a non-parole period of 5 years commencing on 9 March 2020 and expiring on 8 March 2025; and
(c)   a balance of term of 3 years commencing on 9 March 2025 and expiring on 8 March 2028.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – domestic violence offences – dysfunctional background – reduced moral culpability – specific deterrence – general deterrence – rehabilitation – community protection – maximum penalties reserved for worst category offences – resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 37(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 33, 35A, 44, 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(1)

Cases Cited:
BT v R [2019] NSWCCA 147
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
GS v R; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v GS [2022] NSWCCA 65
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Khawaja v R [2014] NSWCCA 80
Kliendienst v R [2020] NSWCCA 98
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Ladas [2020] NSWDC 832
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
The State of Western Australia v Munda (2012) 43 WAR 137; [2012] WASCA 164

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Spiros Ladas (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Todd (Applicant)
M Kumar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Sanford Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/165739
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Ladas [2020] NSWDC 832

Date of Decision:

9 November 2020

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/165739

Judgment

BEECH-JONES CJ at CL: I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Dhanji J. Subject to what follows I…

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 Ladas v R

Details

AGLC: Ladas v R [2022] NSWCCA 160
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 160
Decision Date: 22 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ladas appealed against his conviction and sentence for domestic violence offences, which included assault occasioning actual bodily harm and threatening to kill. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the offender's background, culpability, and the principles of sentencing. The appeal focused on whether the sentence should be reconsidered in light of the principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also ensuring community protection.

The court examined the nature of the offences, which were serious and involved significant violence against the victim. It also considered the offender's dysfunctional background, which contributed to his reduced moral culpability. The court noted that while the offender's background was a mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence, and rehabilitation were all considered, along with the need to protect the community. The court emphasised that maximum penalties should be reserved for the worst category of offences.

After a thorough analysis of the offender's background, the nature of the offences, and the principles of sentencing, the court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The offender was resentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the need for specific deterrence, general deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also ensuring community protection. The court emphasised that the new sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to balance the various sentencing principles.

Orders