R v Bourozikas - [2008] VSC 558

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1726 of 2008

THE QUEEN

GEORGE BOUROZIKAS

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 November 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 November 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bourozikas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 558

---

CRIMINAL law – Sentence – Australian legal practitioner with trust account deficiency – Three counts of theft – Prior conviction for forgery – Pleas of guilty.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Borg	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms E. McKinnon	Kourkoulis and Associates

HER HONOUR:

George Bourozikas, you have pleaded guilty to one count of having a deficiency in a trust account and three counts of theft. You have admitted a prior conviction for forgery.

You were admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria in April 1982 and, apart from one year when your practising certificate was cancelled, you practised as a sole practitioner in Croydon from 1984 to 2007. In that capacity, you acted for the executor of the Estate of the late Lorraine Brooks and accordingly established a trust ledger card in the name of the estate to enable funds to be disbursed to the beneficiaries, Joy Lau and Raymond Brooks, the two children of the deceased.

On 9 May 2006, you wrote two trust account cheques, each in the amount of $50,000, and both payable to you. Both cheques were subsequently deposited into your personal cheque account, thus creating a deficiency of $100,000 in your trust account, which you attempted to conceal by creating false entries on the trust ledger, in the cash payments journal, and on the cheque book stubs.

You had also placed on the estate’s file two unsigned letters addressed to each of the beneficiaries purporting to enclose a cheque for $50,000 to each of them as partial distribution of the estate. These matters came to light when, as part of a routine audit, the Law Institute investigators contacted Ms Lau and Mr Brooks seeking confirmation of the receipt of $50,000.

On 22 February 2008, you were interviewed by officers of the Fraud Squad. In that interview, you admitted depositing the two $50,000 cheques from the trust account into your personal bank account. You stated that you had been under financial pressure at the time and intended to borrow the money from the trust account and to pay it back. You admitted that you had spent all but $28,000 of the money paying off credit card debt, school fees, everyday expenses and a holiday to Greece, and you acknowledged that what you had done was dishonest. When asked if you had a reasonable excuse for having the deficiency in your trust account, you replied that there was no excuse, “I was just a stupid idiot.”

In a letter dated 10 March 2008, you wrote to the Fraud Squad indicating that you would accept service of the hand…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Bourozikas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] VSC 558
Decision Date: 19 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bourozikas, the respondent, a legal practitioner, faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute centred around three counts of theft involving the misappropriation of client funds held in the respondent's trust account. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges, which stemmed from a substantial deficiency in his trust account. The court was also mindful of the respondent's prior conviction for forgery, which occurred several years before the present charges.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of the respondent's professional misconduct and the aggravating factor of his prior conviction. The court had to consider whether to impose a custodial sentence or opt for an alternative form of punishment, such as a fine or community service, taking into account the respondent's professional status, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court concluded that the respondent's actions were a serious breach of trust and demonstrated a significant level of dishonesty. Despite acknowledging the respondent's otherwise unblemished professional record, the court found that the offences warranted a sentence that would serve as a strong deterrent to others in the legal profession. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the respondent's misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence in the legal system. The specific duration of the sentence was determined based on the totality of the circumstances and the need to balance the interests of justice with the respondent's potential for rehabilitation.

Orders