Legal Research
Cases
R v Georgiou

R v Georgiou

Case [2005] NSWCCA 237 4 July 2005

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v GEORGIOU [2005] NSWCCA 237

FILE NUMBER(S):
60494/02

HEARING DATE(S): 8 December 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 04/07/2005

PARTIES:
Regina
Constantinos Georgiou

JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA Hulme J Hidden J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/11/0142

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: P Ingram
Appellant: M O'Brien

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: J Jordan

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Dismiss the appeal against conviction
Grant leave to appeal against sentence
Dismiss the appeal against the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8
Allow the appeal againt the sentences imposed in respect of counts 3 and 4 and quash those sentences
In respect of count 3 sentence the Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 5 years including a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months both such periods commencing on 3 February 1998
In respect of count 4 sentence the Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 4 years including a non-parole period of 3 years both such periods commencing on 3 February 1998

JUDGMENT:

- 20 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

6094/02
SANTOW JA
HULME J
HIDDEN J
Monday, 4 July 2005

R v Constantinos GEORGIOU

Judgment

SANTOW JA: I agree in both reasons and result with Hulme J as regards the appeal against conviction.
So far as sentence is concerned, I agree with Hulme J as to the result, and essentially with his reasons. However, like Hidden J I would prefer to hear fuller argument before concluding that the statistics by themselves “strongly suggest” undue leniency in drug conviction sentence for this category of offence. That said, I agree with Hulme J that continuing discrepancy between the maximum sentence for an offence, and a lower top end of the actual sentencing range is clear cause for concern, and may indeed suggest undue leniency. But one would need to view carefully the features of the cases in that (lower) top range before reaching any concluded view on that matter.
HULME J: On 4 June 2003, the above named Appellant was arraigned on 8 counts.
(i)On 13 May 1996 supplying 105 grams of methylamphetamine.
(ii) On 13 May 1996 supplying 112 grams of cocaine.
(iii) On 15 May 1996 supplying 52.28 grams of cocaine.
(iv)On 15 May 1996 supplying 14.9 grams of methylamphetamine.
(v)On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz a butterfly knife.
(vi)On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz an electrical discharge device.
(vii)On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz an nunchaku.
(viii)On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited article, namely handcuffs.
On 24 June 2002 a jury convicted him in respect of the first and third to eighth of these offences. Earlier they had been directed to find a verdict of not guilty on the second count. On 28 June 2002 Judge Shillington sentenced the Appellant. On the first, third and fourth charges imprisonment for a period of 8 years…

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 Georgiou

Details

AGLC: R v Georgiou [2005] NSWCCA 237
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 237
Decision Date: 4 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Georgiou, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, arising from his actions as a director and managing trustee of various companies. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that Georgiou had misused corporate funds and engaged in deceitful practices to the detriment of the companies and their stakeholders.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Georgiou had acted with the requisite mens rea for each of the charges. It also had to assess the extent of his fiduciary duties and whether these were breached, and if so, the nature and extent of any resulting damages. Furthermore, the court had to consider the applicability of any defences raised by the accused.

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the charges against Georgiou. It was established that he had intentionally misused corporate funds for personal gain and had acted contrary to his fiduciary duties. The court detailed the specific instances of fraud and breaches of duty, noting the significant harm caused to the companies involved. The defence arguments were considered and dismissed as insufficient to negate the prosecution's case. The court concluded that Georgiou was guilty on all counts and proceeded to consider the appropriate penalties.

In conclusion, the court found Georgiou guilty of all charges and ordered that he be sentenced accordingly. The final orders and sentencing details were not provided in the text.

Orders