R v Girgis - [2016] VSC 43

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0137

THE QUEEN

JOSEPH GIRGIS

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 February 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Girgis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 43

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Assist offender (murder) – Offender was member of Bandidos outlaw motorcycle gang – Guilty plea – Undertaking to assist the prosecution in trial of co-accused - s 325 Crimes Act 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson Ms A Moran	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Spicer Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Joseph Girgis, the particulars of the charge to which you have pleaded guilty read as follows:

At Melbourne between 24 May 2014 and 25 May 2014, knowing or believing Luke Paul Maybus and John Peter Walker to be guilty of a serious indictable offence, namely, murder, [you] without lawful authority or reasonable excuse did acts with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the said principal offenders.

The charge is one of assisting an offender contrary to s 325 of the Crimes Act 1958. Because the offence which you believed Maybus and Walker to have committed was murder, the maximum penalty is 20 years, which marks the gravity of this kind of offending.

The victim of the murder you believed to have been committed was one Michael Strike. Commencing next week Maybus and Walker are to be tried before a jury for his murder. So far as the proceedings against them are concerned, they are presumed innocent but, as far as these proceedings against you are concerned, I must proceed on the basis that they committed that offence.

To properly convey the gravity of your offending, it is necessary to briefly describe the circumstances leading up to Strike’s death and the immediate aftermath. This account is based largely on your statement to the police dated 8 February 2016.

On the afternoon of 24 May 2014, Strike, who was affected by alcohol and drugs, attended uninvited at the Brunswick clubhouse of the Melbourne Chapter of the Bandidos Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. He was not a member of the Bandidos or any other Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (OMCG). You, Maybus and Walker, who were all members of the Bandidos, were inside the clubhouse. According to your statement, Walker’s dog “Trouble,” who was outside, started barking at Strike. Walker opened the door and told Strike to leave but unfortunately he wouldn’t. Walker dragged him inside the clubhouse. Strike was talking about a petrol bomb that had been thrown at the Dandenong clubhouse of the Bandidos and about knowing a former member of the Bandidos, a man named Michael Bogovic, whom you also knew. Maybus and Walker started punching Strike. You went into another room of the clubhouse to try and contact Bogovic. When you came back, you saw Walker wrestling with…

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 Girgis

Details

AGLC: R v Girgis [2016] VSC 43
Case: [2016] VSC 43
Decision Date: 11 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Girgis involved the defendant, a member of the Bandidos outlaw motorcycle gang, who had pleaded guilty to assisting an offender in relation to a murder. The dispute centred on the sentencing of the defendant, who had undertaken to assist the prosecution in the trial of a co-accused. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the plea and the assistance provided to the prosecution.

The court considered the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a substantial discount to the sentence. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's undertaking to assist the prosecution, which was pursuant to section 325 of the Crimes Act 1958. The court recognised the defendant's cooperation as a significant factor in favour of a reduced sentence. In assessing the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's culpability, the court also considered the nature of the defendant's involvement in the Bandidos gang and the context of the offence.

After weighing the various factors, the court determined that the defendant's sentence should reflect both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors of the plea and assistance provided to the prosecution. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the discount for the guilty plea and the consideration of the defendant's assistance. The specific length of the sentence was not detailed in the summary but was determined to be appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders