R v Foula Pantazis - [2011] VSC 629

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

SCR 2010 57

THE QUEEN

PARASKEVI (FOULA) PANTAZIS

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 November 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 December 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Foula Pantazis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 629

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempting to pervert the course of justice – Late guilty plea – Serious attack on justice system – 4 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years 3 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Gwynn	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Paraskevi Pantazis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment.

Your offence concerns one of the most notorious criminal episodes in the history of this State.

In early 2006 Antonios Mokbel was on trial in this Court on a serious drug trafficking charge. He was on bail. On 20 March 2006 he failed to answer his bail and disappeared. A bench warrant was issued for his apprehension. The trial continued in his absence. On 31 March 2006 he was convicted and sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. These events attracted significant media attention. Considerable efforts and public resources were employed in an attempt to find and apprehend him. Amongst other things, a reward of $1,000,000 was offered for assistance which would lead to his apprehension.

After hiding for a time in Victoria, Mokbel was transported across Australia by road. He then secretly left this country on a yacht which had been purchased and refitted specifically for the purpose of enabling him to flee. He travelled to Greece via Egypt. He lived in Greece, in hiding, until he was eventually arrested on 5 June 2007.

Your husband, Bassillios (Byron) Pantazis, played a central role in enabling Mokbel to flee this jurisdiction and this country and to live in hiding in Greece. With the assistance of others, he arranged the purchase of a yacht, the “Edwina”, upon which Mokbel fled the country; he arranged for Greek sailors to be engaged who sailed the yacht from Australia to Greece; he arranged for the transport of the yacht from New South Wales to Fremantle; together with your sister, Angela Nissirios, and your daughter (Byron Pantazis’s stepdaughter), Yvonne Warfe, and two others, he physically transported Mokbel by road from Victoria to Fremantle; he participated in the arrangements whereby Mokbel was hidden in Fremantle and the yacht was prepared for international sea travel; he met the yacht as it travelled through the Suez Canal; and he personally undertook activities which enabled Mokbel to live in hiding in Greece.

Your husband, Byron Pantazis, was one of the central participants in a criminal enterprise directed at enabling Mokbel to flee the country and to live in hiding in Greece.

You were also a part…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Foula Pantazis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] VSC 629
Decision Date: 8 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Foula Pantazis, was found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was against both conviction and sentence, which was deemed to be manifestly excessive. The defendant, who had a history of mental illness, had pleaded guilty late in the proceedings. This was after she had been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by providing false evidence to the Coroner's Court in relation to the death of her son.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the defendant's late guilty plea should be taken into account in determining the sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was manifestly excessive, but that the late guilty plea should be taken into account. The Court of Appeal also held that the sentence should be reduced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence should be reduced because of the defendant's late guilty plea, her history of mental illness, and the fact that she had shown remorse for her actions.

The Court of Appeal also held that the sentence should be reduced because it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal held that a sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months was manifestly excessive because it was disproportionate to the offence committed. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence should be reduced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. This was because the sentence should be proportionate to the offence committed and should take into account the defendant's late guilty plea, her history of mental illness, and the fact that she had shown remorse for her actions.

Orders