R v Degioannis

Case [2019] ACTSC 47

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Degioannis

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 47

Hearing Dates:

19 October 2018; 13 December 2018

DecisionDate:

1 March 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [80].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person – using a child for the production of child exploitation material – possession of child exploitation material - failing to report personal details as a registrable offender – guilty plea – breach of Good Behaviour Order – suspended sentence imposed – significant criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 54, 56, 64, 65

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 35

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22

Cases Cited:

Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Byrne v Mingay [2014] ACTSC 126; 242 A Crim R 9
Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157; 32 VR 361
Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3
Degioannis v Boxx [2017] ACTSC 7
Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
R v Arthur [2017] ACTSC 23
R v Asplund; Asplund v R [2010] NSWCCA 316; 216 A Crim R 48
R v Degioannis [2014] ACTSC 240
R v Degioannis (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 16 July 2012)
R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183
R v Dent (unreported, NSWCCA, Lee CJ at CL, Gleeson CJ and Loveday J, 14 March 1991)
R v Eisenach [2011] ACTCA 2
R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1
R v Harrison [2002] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380
R v Hess [1990] 2 SCR 906
R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Minnis (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Higgins CJ, 4 May 2009)
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; 164 A Crim R 481
R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v SAG [2004] QCA 286; 147 A Crim R 301
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 265 A Crim R 499
Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127
Weston v Arley [2012] ACTSC 138
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4; 96 NSWLR 1

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Shannon David Degioannis (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms R Christensen (Crown)

Mr J Sabarwhal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions…

Continue reading R v Degioannis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Degioannis [2019] ACTSC 47
Case
[2019] ACTSC 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Degioannis, the accused was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria to answer charges relating to maintaining a sexual relationship with a minor, engaging a child in the creation of child exploitation material, and possession of such material. Additionally, he was charged with failing to report personal details as required under the registrable offender's scheme. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the accused's guilty plea, his significant criminal history, and the breach of a prior Good Behaviour Order. The case hinged on the severity and nature of the crimes, alongside the accused's previous conduct and the impact on the victim.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the determination of an appropriate penalty, the relevance of the accused's criminal history, and the effect of the breach of a prior Good Behaviour Order. The court was required to balance these factors against the accused's early guilty plea and his expressed remorse. Another critical consideration was the nature and impact of the offences, particularly the exploitation of a minor and the creation and possession of exploitative material. The court had to weigh these elements in the context of the accused's past behaviour and the potential for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, considered the totality of the accused's actions and background. The court recognised the gravity of the offences, particularly given the exploitation of a minor and the production of exploitative material. Despite the accused's guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the court noted the significant criminal history and the breach of a previous order as aggravating factors. Ultimately, the court imposed a suspended sentence, reflecting a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need for the accused to comply with the conditions of the suspended sentence and adhere to all legal requirements moving forward.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a suspended sentence, with specific conditions to be met by the accused. These conditions were designed to ensure the accused's compliance with the law and to protect the community. The court also mandated that the accused adhere to the terms of the registrable offender's scheme and report any changes in personal details as required. Additionally, the court ordered that the accused be subject to supervision and monitoring to prevent any further breaches of the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [80].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.