R v Girardo & Michaelides

Case [2012] QCA 166

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Girardo & Michaelides [2012] QCA 166

PARTIES:

R
v
GIRARDO, Mario Michael
(appellant/applicant)

R
v
MICHAELIDES, Nicholaas Paul
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2011
CA No 248 of 2011
DC No 209 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2012

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Peter Lyons and Dalton JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal against conviction by each appellant is dismissed;

2.     The application for leave to appeal against sentence by each applicant is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where each appellant convicted at trial on two counts of demanding property, benefit or the performance of services by oral threats under s 415 of the Criminal Code 1899 – where appellant Michaelides convicted with aggravating circumstances – where success of appellant Girardo’s appeal is contingent on success of appellant Michaelides’ appeal – where various descriptions given by complainant of man who attacked him are said to be inconsistent with appellant Michaelides – where appellant Michaelides has distinctive tattoo – where complainant did not refer to tattoo in any description – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, in light of these inconsistencies

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where each appellant convicted at trial on two counts of demanding property, benefit or the performance of services by oral threats under
s 415 of the Criminal Code 1899 – where appellant Michaelides convicted with aggravating circumstances – where appellant Michaelides did not pursue application for leave to appeal sentence – where appellant Girardo sentenced to four years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently – where threats were made against both complainant and complainant’s children – whether sentence of appellant Girardo was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 415, s 668E

Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314; [1988] HCA 47, considered
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed
R v Campbell [1997] QCA 127, distinguished
R v Cifuentes [2006] QCA 566, distinguished
R v Stokes [1993] QCA 467, considered
R v Stratton[1992] QCA 102, considered
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, followed
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42, considered

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the appellant, Girardo
M J Byrne QC for the appellant, Michaelides
V Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant, Girardo

Continue reading R v Girardo & Michaelides

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Girardo & Michaelides [2012] QCA 166
Case
[2012] QCA 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Girardo & Michaelides, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered an appeal against conviction and sentence by two appellants who had been found guilty of demanding property, benefit, or the performance of services by oral threats under section 415 of the Criminal Code 1899. Michaelides was also convicted under the aggravating circumstances provision. The appeal against conviction hinged on the contention that the complainant's descriptions of the assailant did not match Michaelides, particularly in relation to a distinctive tattoo that Michaelides had but which the complainant did not mention. The appeal against sentence focused on whether the four-year concurrent imprisonment terms imposed on Girardo were manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented, specifically considering the inconsistencies between the complainant's descriptions and the appellants' appearances. The court also reviewed the sentencing, assessing whether it was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the nature of the threats made against both the complainant and their children.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, finding no basis to conclude that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable. Additionally, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the serious nature of the offences and the impact on the victims. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction by each appellant is dismissed;

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence by each applicant is refused.

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.