Papadopoulos v The Queen - [2014] VSCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0109

PERICLES PAPADOPOULOS
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NETTLE and WEINBERG JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 April 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	4 April 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 63
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Papadopoulos [2013] VSC 134 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter – Applicant stabbed fellow rooming house occupant in chest following petty dispute – Sentenced to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of nine years – Whether manifestly excessive – Applicant had prior conviction in Greece for ‘voluntary homicide’ (murder) – Prior offending occurred after similarly minor dispute – Limited evidence of remorse – Specific deterrence particularly significant – Sentence not wholly outside range reasonably available – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	COUNSEL	SOLICITORS
For the Applicant	The applicant appeared in person
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

I invite Weinberg JA to deliver the first judgment.

WEINBERG JA:

The applicant, Pericles Papadopoulos, now aged 68, pleaded guilty before King J to a charge of manslaughter. He was sentenced to a term of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence, essentially upon the sole ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Circumstances surrounding the offending

The applicant, Andonios Mirtsopoulos and George Karkanis together occupied a boarding house intended for use by elderly Greek men at 13 Thompson Street, Clayton. They had lived there together for a considerable time.

The applicant and Mirtsopoulos did not get along at all. In the six months leading to the stabbing of the deceased, they argued repeatedly over petty matters. Other than that, they rarely communicated.

Two weeks prior to the instant offending, Mirtsopoulos expended considerable effort in digging up the fenced-off back garden of the premises. It was his intention to plant vegetables in that area. On the night of 19 October 2011, the applicant planted his own tomato and pepper plants in the very area that Mirtsopoulos had cultivated for his own use. Not surprisingly, this did not go down well with Mirtsopoulos.

On the following evening, 20 October 2011, Mirtsopoulos was preparing dinner in the outside kitchen area. The applicant and Karkanis were both in the kitchen, having their evening meal. Karkanis finished eating and went out into the backyard. Mirtsopoulos approached Karkanis and made it clear to him that he was

upset with the applicant for having unilaterally assumed control of the area that Mirtsopoulos had previously dug up.

Mirtsopoulos then called upon the applicant to come outside. When the applicant emerged from the house, he was holding the remnants of a pear, and had in his left hand a knife approximately five inches in length. He had been using that knife to slice, and eat, the pear.

The…

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 Papadopoulos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Papadopoulos v The Queen [2014] VSCA 63
Case: [2014] VSCA 63
Decision Date: 4 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Papadopoulos v The Queen dealt with an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant following a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The applicant, Papadopoulos, had stabbed a fellow occupant of a rooming house in the chest after a petty dispute. He was sentenced to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years. Papadopoulos sought to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant had a prior conviction in Greece for a crime analogous to murder, which arose from a similar minor dispute, and he had displayed limited evidence of remorse.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the applicant's prior offending history, and the principles of sentencing. The Court considered the relevance of the prior conviction and the limited evidence of remorse in determining whether the sentence was appropriate. The Court also examined the principle of specific deterrence, which was particularly significant given the applicant's history of violence following minor disputes.

The Court found that the sentence, while severe, was not wholly outside the range reasonably available to the trial judge. The Court emphasised the importance of the sentencing judge’s consideration of specific deterrence due to the applicant’s history of violent behaviour following minor disputes. The Court concluded that the sentence was within the bounds of what could reasonably be considered appropriate, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need to balance the principles of general and specific deterrence with the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

Orders