JUDGE:	TAYLOR J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Giannioudis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 75

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Stabbing – Plea of guilty – Accused suffered profound childhood deprivation – Application of Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 – Accused with heroin addiction – Offence committed whilst trafficking heroin but not to satisfy heroin addiction – Discussion of R v McKee (2003) 138 A Crim R 88 – Application of R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – Genuine remorse – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Williams	Papa Hughes

HER HONOUR:

Zoe Giannioudis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, namely the stabbing of Simon Cartwright in the chest with a knife on 30 October 2017.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

In October 2017, you were living in an apartment with your brother in Collingwood. You were unemployed, severely drug addicted and, to fund your habit, selling heroin in the Richmond area.

Mr Cartwright had been a previous customer of yours and there was, dating from at least a few weeks prior to the night of his death, a marked hostility between you. The duration of that hostility and the extent to which Mr Cartwright had acted aggressively towards you, was in issue on your plea. I will later return to this issue.

On Monday 30 October 2017, you and your partner, Ms Bates, arrived by car to the vicinity of Victoria and Nicholson Streets, Richmond at about 8.00pm, in order for you to sell heroin. Mr Cartwright together with his partner arrived in the vicinity a short time later. The weather was inclement, reducing the number of pedestrians generally and your customers specifically. You told one potential customer close to 9.00pm that you had not sold any heroin due to the rain and could not, therefore, supply drugs to her on credit.

At about 9.17pm, you and Ms Bates were near 140 Victoria Street, Richmond. Mr Cartwright and his partner were on the opposite side of the road. While his partner sat down and remained there, Mr Cartwright crossed the road and approached you and Ms Bates. He was carrying a washing basket. After a brief interaction, you produced a knife and stabbed Mr Cartwright once to the chest.

Mr Cartwright’s partner heard him cry out in pain and ran to him, not realising he had been stabbed. She observed you holding a knife. Mr Cartwright told her he had been…

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 Giannioudis

Details

AGLC: R v Giannioudis [2019] VSC 75
Case: [2019] VSC 75
Decision Date: 21 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the sentencing of a defendant, Giannioudis, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the stabbing of a victim. The case was heard in a higher court within Australia, which will remain unnamed in this summary. The central dispute was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, considering his background, the circumstances of the offence, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the application of sentencing principles, particularly the factors outlined in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, to the defendant’s unique circumstances. The court had to consider the defendant's profound childhood deprivation and his heroin addiction, which played a role in the commission of the offence. It also needed to determine whether the offence was related to the defendant's addiction and whether his guilty plea and remorse were mitigating factors. The court examined these issues in the context of previous cases such as R v McKee (2003) 138 A Crim R 88 and R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.

The court found that the defendant's background and personal circumstances were significant mitigating factors. It considered his genuine remorse and the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that the offence was committed in the course of heroin trafficking but not to satisfy his addiction. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court sentenced the defendant to eight years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months. This sentence reflected the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for the defendant to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Giannioudis, would serve a total of eight years in prison, with a non-parole period of five years and six months. This decision balanced the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented during the sentencing hearing.

Orders