R v Arkan & Andrakakos - [2002] VSC 577

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1465 of 2002

THE QUEEN

NESE ARKAN AND PETER ANDRAKAKOS

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 November and 13 December 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 December 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R V ARKAN AND ANDRAKAKOS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 577

---

Criminal law – sentencing – murder following home invasion – vicious attack on 81 year old man living alone – first offender pleading guilty and second offender found to be guilty – sentence, for the first offender: 21 years with a non-parole period of 17 years; and, for the second offender: 19 years with a non-parole period of 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. P. Leckie, SC with Ms. G. Cannon	Solicitor For Public Prosecutions
For the first offender (Arkan)	Ms J.A.H. Sutherland	Grubissa & White
For the second offender(Andrakakos)	Mr J.D. Montgommery	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

On 6 November 2002, Nese Arkan and Peter Andrakakos were arraigned on charges that they did at McKinnon on 22 September 2001 murder Keith Herman. Nese Arkan, pleaded guilty. Peter Andrakakos pleaded not guilty but after a four day trial he was found to be guilty of murder. It is now my task to sentence them both.

The facts

The facts of the offences were the subject of detailed examination during the trial and I will not repeat them at length. I restate here only so much as is necessary to place the sentences in context.

At the time of his death Keith Herman was 81 years old, widowed and living alone in his own home at 244 Tucker Road McKinnon. He had retired from full time employment at the age of 60 and thereafter he had developed a home business of supplying coin operated serviced pool tables to a number of hotels. Despite his age, he remained active in the business. The coin operated nature of the business meant that he was in the habit of keeping relatively large amounts of cash at his home.

Keith Herman had been married for 50 years before his wife died of cancer in 1997. Understandably, her death left him profoundly lonely. In an endeavour to fill the void, he joined a local bowls club and he established friendships with some of the lady members of the club. But he could not find in those friendships the sort of companionship which he had for so long shared with his wife. In the end he sought companionship through an escort agency and as a result he met Nese Arkan, who was then a prostitute working with the agency.

Arkan was born on 24 October 1969 and had been a heroin user since 1997 or 1998. At the time at which she met Keith Herman she was on a methadone program, but it does not appear that Keith Herman knew anything of…

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 Arkan & Andrakakos

Details

AGLC: R v Arkan and Andrakakos [2002] VSC 577
Case: [2002] VSC 577
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Arkan & Andrakakos, the appellants were convicted for the brutal murder of an 81-year-old man during a home invasion. Arkan, the first offender, pleaded guilty, while Andrakakos, the second offender, was found guilty by the jury. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had the responsibility of sentencing the two men for their heinous crime.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences to be imposed on the offenders, considering the aggravating factors of the crime. The court had to take into account the particularly cruel nature of the attack on an elderly, defenceless man living alone, the premeditated nature of the crime, and the lack of remorse shown by the offenders. Additionally, the court was required to determine the non-parole periods for both Arkan and Andrakakos, ensuring that these periods reflected the gravity of the offence and served to protect society.

The court delivered its judgment, holding that the crime committed by the appellants was of exceptional depravity and brutality. The court found that the attack on the 81-year-old victim was not only violent but also showed a callous disregard for human life. In determining the sentences, the court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the vulnerable state of the victim and the lack of any mitigating factors. Arkan was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years, while Andrakakos was sentenced to 19 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message that such heinous acts would not be tolerated.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that Arkan serve a total of 21 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 17 years, and that Andrakakos serve a total of 19 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court's sentencing reflects the gravity of the crime and aims to achieve justice for the victim and to protect society from the offenders.

Orders