Legal Research
Cases
Pantazis v The Queen

Pantazis v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 59 18 March 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0052

PARASKEVI FOULA PANTAZIS	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	HARPER, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	18 March 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDERS	18 March 2013
DATE OF REASONS	20 March 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 59
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Paraskevi Foula Pantazis [2011] VSC 629 Whelan J

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – Sentence of imprisonment of four (4) years imposed – Non-Parole period of two (2) years and three (3) months – Evidence appellant suffering from depression and dependent personality disorder – Plea of guilty – No prior convictions – Fresh evidence – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to a period of imprisonment for three (3) years, all but 476 days of that sentence to be suspended for a period of three years – R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 184 applied.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr T Kassimatis	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HARPER JA
PRIEST JA
COGHLAN JA:

Introduction

On 18 March 2013 the Court made orders allowing the appeal against sentence on ground 3. In lieu of the sentence first imposed, the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of three (3) years, all but 476 days of that sentence to be suspended for a period of three years. The Court declared 476 days as reckoned as having been already served. It was indicated that the Court would later provide reasons for the orders. These are those reasons.

Sentence and grounds of appeal

The appellant pleaded guilty on 28 November 2011 to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice.[1] She was sentenced on 8 December 2011 to four (4) years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two (2) years and three (3) months. The sentencing judge declared that, but for the plea of guilty, he would have sentenced her to a term of imprisonment for five (5) years with a non-parole period of three (3) years and six (6) months.
[1]Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a crime at common law for which the penalty fixed by s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958 is 25 years’ imprisonment.

On 23 November 2012 Tate JA granted the appellant leave to appeal against her sentence confined to a single ground (ground 3), namely:

The sentencing judge’s discretion ought to be re-exercised by this Court by reason of:
(a)evidence of events occurring subsequent to sentence but which are relevant to an appreciation of the true significance of facts which were in existence at the time of sentence;

(b) fresh evidence not before the Court below; and
(c) its being necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Leave was refused on two other grounds (grounds 1 and 2).

The appellant filed a notice of election to renew her application for leave…

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 Pantazis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pantazis v The Queen [2013] VSCA 59
Case: [2013] VSCA 59
Decision Date: 18 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pantazis v The Queen involved an appellant who pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appellant was sentenced to a total of four years in prison, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The appellant presented fresh evidence during the appeal, indicating that she suffered from depression and dependent personality disorder, and had no prior convictions. The appeal was heard by the Victorian Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the fresh evidence presented. The court had to consider the principles set out in R v Nguyen, which provide guidelines for sentencing in cases where fresh evidence is presented after a guilty plea has been entered. The appellant argued that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, and that the court should take into account her mental health issues and lack of prior convictions.

The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not accord with the principles set out in R v Nguyen. The court took into account the appellant's mental health issues and lack of prior convictions, and re-sentenced her to a period of imprisonment for three years, all but 476 days of which were to be suspended for a period of three years. The court held that the appellant's mental health issues and lack of prior convictions were significant mitigating factors that should have been taken into account when imposing the original sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, and that the appellant be re-sentenced to a period of imprisonment for three years, all but 476 days of which were to be suspended for a period of three years. The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine of $1,000. The case highlights the importance of taking into account all relevant factors when imposing a sentence, and the need for courts to be flexible in their approach to sentencing in appropriate cases.

Orders