R v Filippou - [2011] NSWSC 1607

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1607
Hearing dates: 8/12/2011
Decision date: 22 December 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
In relation to the murder of Samuel Willis, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 20 years commencing on 28 June 2010 and expiring on 27 June 2030, with a balance of term of six years.
In relation to the murder of Luke Willis, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 20 years commencing on 28 June 2015 and expiring on 27 June 2035, with a balance of term of six years, commencing on 28 June 2035 and expiring on 27 June 2041.
The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 27 June 2035.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - two counts of murder - both committed in single confrontation - history of neighbourhood dispute - three gunshots at point blank range
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher Angelo Filippou (Offender)
Representation: P Barnett SC (Crown)
P Rosser QC / N Moir (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John Anthony Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/208897
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

On 10 October 2011 Christopher Angelo Filippou was indicted in relation to two charges of murder. The first charge was that on 27 June 2010 he murdered Samuel Willis. The second was that on the same day he murdered Luke Willis. In relation to both charges the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept this plea and the matter went to trial on the issue of murder. In accordance with an order previously made, a jury had been dispensed with and the trial proceeded by myself alone.

Identical issues were raised in relation to both charges. The sole defence raised by the then accused was the partial defence of provocation. In the end I determined that the Crown had disproved this defence beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, on 18 November 2011, I entered a verdict of guilty of murder in relation to both charges. I published my reasons for reaching that verdict. Subsequently, on 8 December 2011, evidence was tendered and submissions made by both parties relating to sentence.

The facts giving rise to the killings, briefly, are as follows. The two victims, Luke and Sam Willis, were brothers. They were aged respectively 28 and 22 at the time of their deaths. Since about 2000 they had been living intermittently in a house at Mayfield owned by their father. Sam Willis was still living there in June 2010. Luke Willis had moved out and was living in his own home at that time, but he kept in close contact with his brother and visited the house regularly.

In early 2009 the offender, Christopher Filippou, bought the house immediately to the rear of the Willis property, so that they shared a back…

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 Filippou

Details

AGLC: R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1607
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1607
Decision Date: 22 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Filippou involved the defendant, Filippou, who was convicted of two counts of murder. The victims were killed during a confrontation that arose from a long-standing neighbourhood dispute. The incident resulted in Filippou firing three shots at point-blank range. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing for the two murders and whether the circumstances surrounding the confrontation warranted any particular consideration.

The court had to consider whether the murders should be treated as a single act of killing or as separate incidents due to the nature of the confrontation and the sequence of events. Another significant issue was whether the history of the neighbourhood dispute should be taken into account in determining the sentence. The court also had to balance the gravity of the crimes against any mitigating factors that might be applicable.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the brutality and premeditated nature of the killings, noting that they were carried out in a cold and calculated manner. The court considered the history of the neighbourhood dispute but concluded that it did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the crimes. The court found that the three gunshots at point-blank range indicated a deliberate act of violence. Ultimately, the court decided that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment for each count of murder, with the sentences to run concurrently. This decision reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect society.

Orders