R v Eliadis - [2017] ACTSC 193

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eliadis
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 193
Hearing Dates:	17 – 18 July 2017
DecisionDate:	18 July 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, two year nonparole period/ recognizance release order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – ACT and federal offences – arson – in company – joint participant in criminal enterprise – offender coordinated offence and provided support and payment – banking offences – plea of guilty –scheme to defraud Australian banks – principal in Greece – offender executed Australian part of scheme – participant in criminal group with foreign nationals – Australian bank accounts overdrawn – loss not recovered – ACT and federal sentencing
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 19(3), 20(1)(b) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 372.1A(1), 400.4, 400.5(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 334(2), 404(1), 652 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35, 36, 62
Cases Cited:	Cheng v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 63 Horne v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 225 Islam v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 233 Kamay v the Queen [2015] VSCA 296; 47 VR 475 R v Chan (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Atkinson J, 16 December 2009) R v Huang [2007] NSWCCA 259; 174 A Crim R 370 Thangavelautham v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 141
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Leo Nicholas Eliadis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr I Bourke SC, Ms J Paingakulam (Crown) Mr T Hickey (Crown) Ms T Warwick (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Capital Lawyers (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 170 of 2016; SCC 187 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

The offender is to be sentenced for two sets of offences: an arson offence that occurred on 13 March 2014 and offences of dishonesty and criminal association that occurred between September 2013 and December 2014.

The offender was on bail until 17 July 2017. The sentences will commence on that date.

Proceedings in relation to the arson offence

On 8 June 2017, a jury found that the offender and the co-offender, Mr Parlov, were guilty of the offence that, on 13 March 2014 at Canberra, they caused damage by fire to a building, Brierly’s Cafe, intending to do so.

Mr Parlov was the principal offender. The offender was convicted on the basis that he was a joint participant pursuant to s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code (ACT)).

Arson is an offence against s 404(1) of the Criminal Code (ACT). It carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a large fine.

On 17 July 2017, I sentenced Mr Parlov to three years’ imprisonment.

Facts of the arson offence

On 12 March 2014, the sale of Brierly’s Cafe (the cafe) in Weston was finalised and the new owners took possession.

On the evening of 12 March 2014, there was brief telephone contact between the offenders. There was no evidence 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 Eliadis

Details

AGLC: R v Eliadis [2017] ACTSC 193
Case: [2017] ACTSC 193
Decision Date: 18 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eliadis was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant, Eliadis, pleaded guilty to multiple charges relating to his involvement in an extensive scheme to defraud Australian banks. The scheme involved multiple bank accounts being overdrawn and the losses were not recoverable. Eliadis coordinated the Australian part of the scheme, which was executed in company with foreign nationals, and provided support and payment for the enterprise. The charges included offences under both the ACT and federal criminal codes, specifically related to arson and banking fraud.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration the nature and extent of his involvement in the criminal enterprise, the seriousness of the offences, and the need to provide deterrence. The court also had to consider the impact of the crimes on the victims and the community, as well as the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing. The defendant's role as a joint participant and coordinator in the criminal scheme was a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that Eliadis's role in the criminal enterprise was significant, and his actions caused substantial harm to the banks and the community. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the offences and provide deterrence to others who might be involved in similar criminal activities. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced Eliadis to four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The court also made a recognizance release order, which means that Eliadis will be released on parole after serving two years in prison.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, two year nonparole period/ recognizance release order

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.