Legal Research
Cases
Lytras v The Queen

Lytras v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 150 10 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0117

CHRIS LYTRAS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 June 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 150
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lytras (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 6 September 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine — Trafficking in cocaine and MDMA — Whether a total effective sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 8 years manifestly excessive — Plea in mitigation incompetently conducted by counsel — Appeal allowed — Resentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years — DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen (2017) 268 A Crim R 1; DPP v Condo [2019] VSCA 181 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Smallwood and Mr T Bourbon	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr J Lewis	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 10 November 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty before a judge in the County Court to one charge of trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence,[1] methylamphetamine (charge 1), and two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence,[2] respectively cocaine and MDMA (charges 2 and 3).
[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 71AA. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 71AC. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

After a plea conducted before another judge on 17 August 2018,[3] the applicant was sentenced on 6 September 2018 to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years, in accordance with the following table:
[3]The delay between 10 November 2017 and 17 August 2018 was in part attributable to a foreshadowed application by the applicant to change his plea. By 6 April 2018, the applicant had indicated that he would not proceed with that application.

Charge Offence Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) 10 years Base

2 Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cocaine) 4 years 1 year

3 Trafficking in a drug of dependence (MDMA) 4 years 1 year

Total Effective Sentence 12 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period 8 years

Pre-Sentence Detention 874 days

6AAA statement 15 years’ imprisonment with 11 years non-parole

Other Orders Forensic sample

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on two grounds, formulated as follows:

1. The individual sentences imposed, the orders for cumulation made, the resulting total effective sentence and the non‐parole period fixed were each manifestly excessive.
Particulars:
(a) The individual sentences imposed, in particular that imposed on charge 1, were manifestly too long.
(b) The sentence imposed on charge…

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 Lytras v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lytras v The Queen [2020] VSCA 150
Case: [2020] VSCA 150
Decision Date: 10 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the appellant, Lytras, appealed against his sentence for various drug trafficking offences, including trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, and trafficking in cocaine and MDMA. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence, specifically the total effective term of 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The appellant's primary contention was that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his plea in mitigation which he claimed was incompetently handled by his counsel. The case required the court to assess the severity of the sentence and whether it was manifestly excessive, as well as to consider the impact of the alleged incompetency of legal representation.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the appellant's plea in mitigation was conducted incompetently by his counsel. The court considered relevant authorities, including DPP v Dalgliesh, Gregory v The Queen, and DPP v Condo, to evaluate the proportionality of the sentence. The court also examined the appellant's argument that his sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the totality principle and the need for proportionality in sentencing. The court further scrutinised the conduct of the appellant’s counsel during the plea in mitigation phase to determine if it met the required standards of competency.

The Supreme Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and did not adequately reflect the totality principle in sentencing. The court accepted that the plea in mitigation was incompetently conducted, which adversely affected the appellant’s sentencing outcome. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to a total effective term of 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. This decision took into account the totality principle, the need for proportionality, and the impact of the ineffective plea in mitigation. The court emphasised the importance of competent legal representation in ensuring just outcomes in criminal cases.

The final orders of the court included the resentencing of the appellant to a total effective term of 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The court also directed that the appellant’s legal representation issue be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities for further scrutiny. This decision underscored the significance of fair and competent legal representation in the criminal justice system and the need for proportionality in sentencing.

Orders