R v Eleter - [2002] NSWSC 1224

CITATION: R v Eleter [2002] NSWSC 1224

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70207/02; 70208/02; 70017/02; 70209/02; 70063/02

HEARING DATE(S): 18 September, 29 November & 6 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 December 2002

PARTIES :

Michael ELETER
Tony ELETER
George ELETER
Youssef ELETER
JO

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : M Hobart / R Ranken (sol) / T Thorpe (Crown)
C Steirn SC / G Smirilios (Michael Eleter)
G Jones (Tony Eleter)
S Wilkinson / W Washington (George Eleter)
D Campbell SC / J Castaldi (Youssef Eleter)
J Spencer / M Crowley (JO)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Chahoud Kalouche & Associates (Michael Eleter)
Michie, Shehadie & Co (Tony Eleter)
Ford Gaitanis Lawyers (George Eleter)
Freemans Solicitors (Youssef Eleter)
MacElbing Mednis & Associates (JO)

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - murder with aggravated armed robbery taken into account - affray - act to pervert the course of justice - young offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 11
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21A, 32 & 44
Crimes Act 1900, ss 93B, 93C, 93D & 319

CASES CITED: The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
R v Niketic [2002] NSWCCA 425
R v Huynh [2000] NSWCCA 18
R v Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465
R v Ainsworth (1994) 76 A Crim R 127
R v Hearne [1999] NSWSC 605
R v Huynh & Phung [2001] NSWSC 357
R v Townsend & Copper (NSWCCA - unreported - 14 February 1995)
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v XYJ (NSWCCA - unreported - 15 June 1992)
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
R v Harris (2001) 125 A Crim R 27
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
R v Lemene (2001) 118 A Crim R 131

DECISION: See paras 60-68

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL

DUNFORD J

Friday, 20 DECEMBER 2002
70207/02 R v Michael ELETER
70208/02 R v Tony ELETER
70017/02 R v George ELETER
70209/02 R v Youssef Peter ELETER
70063/02 R v JO

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

(Note: The prisoner JO was under the age of 18 at the time of committing the offences the subject of these proceedings, and accordingly the publication of his name outside the Court is prohibited by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 11).

1 His Honour: On 18 September last, the prisoner Michael Eleter pleaded guilty to the murder of Victor Zaccak and requested that a further charge of aggravated armed robbery be taken into account in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32. On the same day the prisoners Tony Eleter, George Eleter, Youssef Eleter and JO pleaded guilty to a charge of affray, and on 29 November JO pleaded guilty to a further charge of an act intending to pervert the course of justice. The charge of affray carries a maximum penalty 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 Eleter

Details

AGLC: R v Eleter [2002] NSWSC 1224
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1224
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Eleter involved the sentencing of a young offender who had been found guilty of murder, aggravated armed robbery, affray, and an act to pervert the course of justice. The victim, a 15-year-old boy, was fatally stabbed during an aggravated armed robbery. The court was required to consider the nature of the crimes, the offender's age and background, and the principle of proportionality in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court needed to address the severity of the crimes, particularly the murder and the aggravated armed robbery. The defence argued that the offender was a young person with a troubled background who had shown remorse. The prosecution highlighted the brutality of the crime and the need for deterrence. The court had to balance these factors against the need to rehabilitate the offender, particularly given their age.

The court found that the crimes were extremely serious, involving violence and a clear intent to commit robbery. However, it also recognised the offender's youth and potential for rehabilitation. The court decided that a determinate sentence was appropriate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The sentence was designed to reflect the gravity of the crimes while also providing an opportunity for the offender to be rehabilitated. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period set to ensure public safety and provide the offender with a chance for rehabilitation.

Orders