Legal Research
Cases
R v Angelopoulos

R v Angelopoulos

Case [2005] VSCA 258 10 November 2005

Sentencing

Intentional Injury

Possession of Firearm

Jurisdiction

Youthful Offender

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 102 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
LEIGH ANGELOPOULOS

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY, BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 October 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 258

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Affray – Intentionally causing serious injury – Intentionally causing injury – Possession of unregistered firearm – Youthful offender, aged 17 years at time of offences – No prior convictions – Total effective sentence of 30 months’ detention in Youth Training Centre – Whether manifestly excessive – Relevance to sentencing in County Court of the Children and Young Persons (Age Jurisdiction) Act 2004 – Jurisdiction of Children’s Court extended from “child” offenders aged 17 years at time of an offence to offenders aged 18 years - Amendments given assent but not in operation at time of sentencing – Appellant re-sentenced to total effective sentence of 18 months’ detention in YTC.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms G.T. Cannon	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr L.C. Carter	Patrick W. Dwyer

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment prepared by Eames, J.A. I agree with his Honour that ground 1A should be upheld and in the orders he proposes. For the reasons he gives, it is unlikely that any of the other grounds would have succeeded.

Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 provides, among other things, that, subject to s.134, the Criminal Division of the Children’s Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine summarily all charges against children for indictable offences, other than murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, arson causing death and culpable driving causing death. That jurisdiction is exclusive.[1] The sentencing orders available to the Court are set out in s.137 in ascending order of severity. The most severe disposition is to convict the child and order that he or she be detained in a youth training centre.[2] Section 189 provides, among other things, that the period of detention in respect of an offence must not exceed two years and that, if a child is convicted on the same day, or in the same proceeding, of more than one offence, the aggregate term of detention must not exceed three years. As Eames, J.A. explains, s.139 lists matters that the Court must, as far as practicable, take into account in determining which sentence to impose on a child. I agree with his Honour that it is inappropriate, in this case, to decide whether general deterrence may be relevant even though it is not mentioned.
[1]Section 17. A case may nevertheless be transferred to the Magistrates’ Court under s.16(6) or proceed to the Supreme Court or the County Court via s.134(3).
[2]Section 137(1)(j).

The word “child” was previously defined, in s.3, to mean, in the case of a person alleged to have committed an offence, a person who at the time of the alleged commission…

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 R v Angelopoulos

Details

AGLC: R v Angelopoulos [2005] VSCA 258
Case: [2005] VSCA 258
Decision Date: 10 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by a defendant convicted of multiple offences including affray, intentionally causing serious injury, intentionally causing injury, and possession of an unregistered firearm. The appellant, aged 17 at the time of the offences, was sentenced to a total effective term of 30 months’ detention in a Youth Training Centre. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, especially considering the amendments to the Children and Young Persons (Age Jurisdiction) Act 2004, which extended the Children’s Court jurisdiction to include 18-year-old offenders, although these amendments were not in force at the time of sentencing. The appeal sought to re-sentence the appellant, arguing that the sentence should reflect the new legislative framework.

The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant’s age and the legislative changes that had not yet come into effect. The court also needed to determine the relevance of the amendments to the Children and Young Persons (Age Jurisdiction) Act 2004 in the context of sentencing under the County Court. The court was tasked with ensuring that the sentence was appropriate for the appellant’s age and the nature of the offences committed.

The court found that the original sentence of 30 months’ detention was manifestly excessive, especially given the appellant’s age at the time of the offences and the imminent legislative changes that would extend the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to include 18-year-old offenders. The court noted that the appellant had no prior convictions and that the sentence should reflect the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality. Considering these factors, the court re-sentenced the appellant to a total effective term of 18 months’ detention in a Youth Training Centre, finding this to be a more appropriate sentence in light of the appellant’s age and the anticipated legislative changes.

The court's decision resulted in the appellant being re-sentenced to a total effective term of 18 months’ detention in a Youth Training Centre. The court emphasised the importance of considering the appellant's age and the imminent legislative changes when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders