R v Balassis - [2009] VSC 127

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1655 of 2008

THE QUEEN

GEORGE BALASSIS

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 December 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Balassis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 127

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – 5 counts of rape – 1 count attempted rape – 4 counts administering a drug for the purposes of sexual penetration – 2 counts indecent assault – 2 counts indecent act – 1 count reckless injury – 7 victims – Predatory conduct persisting over three years – Use of drugs to facilitate sexual offences – Serious sexual offender – Impact on victims not lessened by prior histories of drug use or criminal conduct – Personal characteristics of offender including intelligence – Substance dependence – Grossly inadequate and dysfunctional personality – Pleas of guilty – Expressions of remorse – Limited prospects of rehabilitation – Primacy of protection of the community – Need for appropriate cumulation – Total effective sentence 20 years’ imprisonment – Minimum non‑parole period 16 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs M Williams SC	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr D Ross QC with Ms A Ellis	Rob Melasecca

HIS HONOUR:

George Balassis you have pleaded guilty to five counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, four counts of administering a drug for the purpose of sexual penetration, two counts of indecent assault, two counts of indecent act and one count of recklessly causing injury. The offending spans a period of three years from July 2004 to July 2007.

You were born on 23 November 1963 and at the time your offences were committed were over 40 years in age.

The offences with which you are charged involve seven victims who, apart from one, were not previously known to you before the conduct involved in the offences.

At the time of the offending you were and had been for a number of years involved in poly‑substance abuse. In common with many other drug users you often sought out others with similar inclinations. Your social interaction with them generally included an exchange of drugs and the drinking of alcohol. In turn these meetings were sometimes accompanied by sexual activity. Each of the offences before me occurred after you had taken drugs and often after you had taken drugs in combination with alcohol. It is an agreed fact that this combination adversely affected your capacity for judgment.

Some complainants also had alcohol and/or drug problems and likewise suffered impaired judgment as the result of the ingestion of such substances at or prior to the time of your offending.

In four cases you administered drugs specifically with the intention of rendering your victims incapable of resisting and thereby to enable yourself to take part in acts of sexual penetration, the victims being LT (count 3), PM (count 4) and CA (counts 6 and 11).

In other…

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 Balassis

Details

AGLC: R v Balassis [2009] VSC 127
Case: [2009] VSC 127
Decision Date: 1 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Balassis involved the appellant, Balassis, who was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against seven victims. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Balassis, who had pleaded guilty to his crimes. The nature of the offences included multiple counts of rape, attempted rape, administering drugs for the purposes of sexual penetration, indecent assault, and other related offences. The court had to consider the totality of Balassis' criminal conduct, which had persisted over a period of three years, as well as the use of drugs to facilitate these offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Balassis, considering the gravity and number of offences committed, the impact on the victims, and the personal characteristics of the offender. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the need for protection of the community, and the limited prospects of rehabilitation. The court evaluated whether the sentences for each offence should be cumulative or concurrent, and if so, to what extent.

In arriving at the sentence, the court emphasised the need to protect the community given the serious nature of the crimes and the predatory conduct of Balassis. The court found that the offences were not mitigated by the prior histories of the victims involving drug use or criminal conduct. Balassis' intelligence and substance dependence were also considered, alongside his grossly inadequate and dysfunctional personality. The court acknowledged Balassis' expressions of remorse but highlighted the primacy of community protection and the need for an appropriate cumulation of sentences. The total effective sentence determined by the court was 20 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a total effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years. The court's decision reflected a balanced consideration of the serious nature of the crimes, the need to protect the community, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders