Legal Research
Cases
Police v Giallourakis

Police v Giallourakis

Case [2010] NSWLC 24 18 August 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V Giallourakis [2010] NSWLC 24

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
Theodore GIALLOURAKIS

FILE NUMBER: H41074618

PLACE OF HEARING: Cowra Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 08/18/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Dare

CATCHWORDS: Domestic violence – recklessly cause GBH – sentencing principles – need for deterrence – full-time sentence called for – hardship to third parties

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900. S. 35 (2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999, Ss 3A; 5; 21A;
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, 2007.

CASES CITED: Attorney-General for Tasmania v O [2004] TASSC 53).
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290.
Gallegos v R [1999] WASCA 191;
Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209
Hillier v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] NSWCCA 312 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
R v Berry; [2000] NSWCCA 451
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456R v Channells (Unrep), NSWCCA 30/9/97
R v Corbett [2008] NSWCCA 42
R v Devine (Unrep) TASSC, 5 July 1993,
R v Doan (2000) 115 NSWLR
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349.
R v Douglas [2007] NSWCCA 31.
R v Dunn (2004) 144 A Crim R 180,
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim 510
R v Edigarov (2001) 125 A Crim R 551,
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
R v Glen (Unrep) NSWCCA, 19 December 1994,
R v Greene [2001] NSWCCA 258.
R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179; [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Hopley [2008] NSWCCA 105
R v King (2004) 150 A Crim R 409.
R v Ma (2004) 145 A Crim R 434.
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566;
Roberts v R [2007] NSWCCA 112.
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465;
R v O’Neill (1979) 2 NSWLR 582
R v Ross (NSWCCA), 20 November 1996, (unrep)
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193;.
R v Wirth (1976) 145 SASR 219
Ugle v R [2001] WASCA 268;
Vragovic v R [2007] NSWCCA 46
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Sergeant D. Brand, Police Prosecutor, for the Informant.
Messrs Gordon, Garling, Moffitt, Solicitors, for the Offender.

ORDERS:

- 16 -

1 The Offender, Theodore Giallourakis, stands for sentence having entered a plea of guilty to the following charge –

“(For that he) between 4am and 4.30am on 22 ^nd May, 2010, at Cowra in the State of New South Wales, did recklessly cause grievous bodily harm to Donna Fields.”

2 The Offender was originally charged with assaulting Ms Fields causing actual bodily harm: Section 59 (1), Crimes Act, 1900. Further medical evidence resulted in the index charge being laid leaving the Section 59 matter as a back-up. Following the plea of guilty, that charge is now marked as withdrawn. Also awaiting disposition is an associated Apprehended Domestic Violence Application.

3 The remaining offence is contrary to Section 35 (2) of the Crimes Act, 1900, which provides…

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 Police v Giallourakis

Details

AGLC: Police v Giallourakis [2010] NSWLC 24
Case: [2010] NSWLC 24
Decision Date: 18/8/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, who was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to a woman, his former partner. The incident took place in a public place in Melbourne. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the charge. The key legal issues before the court included the principles of sentencing for domestic violence offences, the need for deterrence, and the potential hardship to third parties.

The court recognised that domestic violence offences often require a strong deterrent message to be sent to the offender and the community. The respondent had a prior conviction for similar offences, indicating a pattern of behaviour. The court considered the need for a full-time sentence to address the seriousness of the crime and to deter future occurrences. In assessing the impact on third parties, the court noted the potential for ongoing trauma to the victim and her family, as well as the broader community.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that a full-time sentence was necessary. The court acknowledged the hardship this would cause to the respondent's children, but found that the need for deterrence and protection of the community outweighed the potential hardship to the third parties. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the potential impact on the victim and the community.

Orders