R v Dinos - [1999] NSWCCA 208

CITATION: R v Dinos [1999] NSWCCA 208

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60786/98

HEARING DATE(S): 21 July 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Mick Dinos

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 2; Studdert J at 24

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 94/11/0303

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL: Crown: P G Berman
Appellant: P Byrne SC

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
Andresakis & Associates

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; Arson; fraudulent insurance claim; sentence not manifestly excessive in the circumstances; caution adopted in regard to use of judicial commission statistics; no error by sentencing Judge; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734
R v Bragias (1997) 92 A Crim R 330
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

- 6 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60786/98

STUDDERT J
SIMPSON J
Wednesday 21 July 1999

REGINA -v- MICK DINOS

JUDGMENT
1    STUDDERT J: I will ask Justice Simpson to give the first judgment.
2 SIMPSON J: On 25 November 1998 the applicant was convicted after a trial by jury of two offences, one of dishonestly destroying or damaging property by fire, and the other of publishing a false statement with intent to obtain money. Pursuant to the Crimes Act 1900, s 197(b), the former offence carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years’ penal servitude and the latter, pursuant to s 178BB, carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3    On 27 November 1998 Hosking DCJ sentenced the applicant on the first count to a total term of penal servitude for four years, conventionally divided into a minimum term of three years and an additional term of one year. On the second charge he imposed a fixed term of imprisonment for nine months. He specified that each sentence was to commence on 25 November 1998, the date of the jury's verdicts.
4    The applicant and a co-accused, Constantine Tikas, were the joint lessees of a chicken shop in Longueville Road, Lane Cove. The business was plainly in financial difficulties and the applicant owed $20,000 in rent to the lessors. After midnight on or about 5 April 1991, which apparently was a week night, the applicant poured petrol around the shop and set it alight. This constituted the first offence of which he was convicted. His co-accused having been charged with the same offence but acquitted by direction, the applicant must be taken to have been acting alone in this respect. Ignition of the petrol caused an explosion and fire that completely destroyed the shop and caused significant damage to an adjoining barber shop and other neighbouring premises. Damage to the chicken shop alone was assessed at $982,000; damage to a nearby computer shop was assessed at $240,000; damage to other premises, including the barber shop, had not, it seems, been assessed at the time of sentencing. In addition to the cost of repair and…

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 Dinos

Details

AGLC: R v Dinos [1999] NSWCCA 208
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 21 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dinos, the accused was convicted of arson and making a fraudulent insurance claim. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which the appellant argued was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate and within the bounds of judicial discretion.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge erred in any way that would warrant an appeal. The court examined the principles of sentencing for arson and fraudulent insurance claims, considering the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The High Court also reviewed the sentencing judge's use of judicial commission statistics to ensure the sentence was proportionate and not based on erroneous data.

The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the severity of the crimes committed and the need for deterrence. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant factors and applied the law correctly. While acknowledging the importance of caution when using statistics, the court concluded that there was no error in the sentencing process that would warrant an appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted to the respondent.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and grant leave to the respondent. This decision affirmed the trial judge's sentence and underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, provided it is exercised within the legal framework and with consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders