Legal Research
Cases
Priovolidis v R

Priovolidis v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 201 21 September 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Priovolidis v R [2016] NSWCCA 201
Hearing dates: 5 September 2016
Decision date: 21 September 2016
Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Price J at [63];
Hidden AJ at [64];
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – appeal – double punishment – applicant convicted of offences under s 51B(1) and s 52A(4) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – offences of police pursuit and aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – where elements in common between two offences – driver of motor vehicle escaping police pursuit causing danger to other persons – where both offences committed in short time and close proximity – whether primary judge erred in sentencing offender twice for elements in common – whether on the facts offences relate to single act or separate and discrete sets of conduct
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 32, 44
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33, 51B, s 52A, 110, 154I
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233B
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 54
Cases Cited: Johnson v R (2004) 205 ALR 346; [2004] HCA 15
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
Portolesi v R [2012] NSWCA 157
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
White v R [2016] NSWCCA 190
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Spiros Priovolidis (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Loukas SC/ M Rabsch (Applicant)
N Williams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/254594
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

09 June 2015

Before:

Conlon DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/254594

Judgment

GLEESON JA: The applicant, Spiros (Ross) Priovolidis, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court by Conlon DCJ on 9 June 2015.
The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty in the Campbelltown Local Court to two driving offences. The first was the offence of failing to stop when the applicant knew or reasonably should have known the police were in pursuit and driving in a manner dangerous to others (police pursuit) contrary to s 51B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act). The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment. The details of the offence charged under s 51B(1) were that the applicant:

…. on 21 August 2013 at Campbelltown and other places in the State of New South Wales did drive a vehicle, … knowing that police officers were in pursuit of the said vehicle and that he was required to stop the vehicle and did not stop the vehicle and then drove the said vehicle in a manner dangerous to others. [Emphasis added].

The second…

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 Priovolidis v R

Details

AGLC: Priovolidis v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 201
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 201
Decision Date: 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Priovolidis v R, the appellant challenged the sentencing imposed by the primary judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Priovolidis was convicted of two offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, causing grievous bodily harm (s 52A(4)), and failing to stop after a police pursuit (s 51B(1)). The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in sentencing the appellant twice for elements that were in common between the two offences. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the offences related to a single act or separate and discrete sets of conduct, given that they were committed in close proximity and time.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding double punishment and the sentencing of concurrent offences. It considered whether the primary judge appropriately assessed the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether the sentences imposed were commensurate with the gravity of the conduct. The court also evaluated the overlap in the elements of the two offences and whether the primary judge had correctly accounted for the common elements in the sentencing process.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the primary judge did not err in sentencing the appellant twice for the two offences, as they related to separate and discrete sets of conduct. The court found that the offences, while closely related in time and circumstance, involved distinct actions that warranted separate sentencing. The court emphasised that the primary judge had appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of each offence and had not imposed a double punishment for the common elements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the sentences imposed by the primary judge. The court's decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between concurrent offences and ensuring that sentencing accurately reflects the gravity of the conduct involved.

Orders