Pasinis v The Queen

[2014] VSCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0205

NICHOLAS PASINIS	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE JA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	7 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 May 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 97	First revision: 23 June 2014
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP (Vic) v Pasinis (County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo, 26 September 2013)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against sentence — Two charges of intentionally causing serious injury to de facto wife on two separate occasions — Total effective sentence eight years, non-parole period six years — At time of sentencing appellant had already served full sentence of two years and six months for related offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice without being granted parole — Appellant remained in custody pending the hearing of the two charges of intentionally causing serious injury — Whether individual sentences of five years for each offence, cumulation of three years for the second offence and non-parole period manifestly excessive — Whether sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the totality principle — Total effective sentence and non-parole period not unjust or inappropriate — Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC	Mr V Andreou
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA
KYROU AJA:

1. On 8 December 2006, the appellant, Nicholas Pasinis, broke his de facto wife, D’s left arm.  On 7 March 2007, the appellant broke D’s other arm.  On 13 May 2013, he pleaded guilty to two charges of intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’) and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of six years.[1]  This appeal concerns whether the individual sentences or total effective sentence should be set aside because the sentences were manifestly excessive or because of the failure by the sentencing judge to give appropriate consideration to the totality principle.

   [1]DPP (Vic) v Pasinis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo, 26 September 2013) (‘Sentencing Remarks’).

1. For the reasons that follow, the sentences were neither vitiated by any specific error nor manifestly excessive.  Rather, they properly reflected the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating features of the offences and their devastating effects on D in the context of a violent domestic relationship.  The sentencing judge properly considered and balanced these matters — and the mitigating circumstances upon which the appellant relied — and arrived at sentences which were not outside the range of sentencing options that were open to him.

Circumstances of the offending

1. The appellant and D were in a de facto relationship between July 2006 and December 2008.  That relationship was characterised by abuse and violence by the appellant towards D.

1. On 8 December 2006 the appellant’s mother passed away and so he and D attended a friend’s house for drinks.  While driving home, the appellant became angry at D and punched her on the thigh.  He accused her…