R v Goussis - [2009] VSC 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1457 of 2007

THE QUEEN

EVANGELOS GOUSSIS

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 October 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 February 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Goussis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 16

---

Murder – gangland execution – paid hit man – no remorse – prior conviction for attempted murder – further conviction for murder committed subsequent to murder for which being sentenced – issue of appropriateness of imposing minimum term.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Shirreffs SC	Slades and Parsons

HER HONOUR:

Evangelos Goussis on 29 May 2008 you were convicted of one count of murder, being the murder of Lewis Moran, and one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Herbert Wrout, both offences having occurred on 31 March 2004. You pleaded not guilty and the trial took a total of eight weeks.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and for intentionally causing serious injury it is 20 years imprisonment.

There was a substantial delay before these matters were heard by this court, due to a number of factors, including the prior murder trial in which you were involved, but more substantially the number of matters with which your then co-accused Carl Williams had been charged, which had to be dealt with by the court.

The plea in this matter was not heard until 2 October 2008, at the request of your counsel.

The murder was a contract gangland execution, carried out in the most public of places, at a time of day when there were many persons present in the area of the shooting. These crimes were committed for financial gain by you and others, at the request of Carl Williams and allegedly also “A”. Whilst I will not use the word allegedly on each occasion that I refer to “A”, these findings that I make are for the purpose of sentencing in this case and represent no concluded view of any of the alleged activities of “A”.

I find that the murder and intentional causing of serious injury occurred in the following circumstances. A few weeks prior to 31 March 2004, Keith Faure was contacted by Carl Williams and asked to perform a murder, being the killing of Lewis Moran.

The background to that murder was that there had been, for some time, a gangland “war” in Melbourne in which the participants had been the Williams and the Moran families and their associates. Carl Williams had already contracted the murder of Jason Moran and his friend Pasquale Barbaro, who were murdered whilst sitting in their vehicle while collecting children from an ‘Ozkick’ clinic being conducted in Essendon. That had also been a particularly brutal murder in very public circumstances, once again involving innocent people and terrifying the citizens of Melbourne. Mark Moran, the sibling of Jason Moran, also…

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 Goussis

Details

AGLC: R v Goussis [2009] VSC 16
Case: [2009] VSC 16
Decision Date: 9 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the prosecution of Goussis, the respondent, the case before the court involved a brutal murder that occurred as a result of a gangland execution. Goussis, who had previously been convicted of attempted murder, had hired a hitman to carry out the killing of the victim. The execution was carried out with no remorse, and Goussis had further been convicted of another murder committed subsequent to the murder for which he was being sentenced. The legal issue at the heart of the case was the appropriateness of imposing a minimum term for Goussis's current murder conviction, given his prior criminal history and the nature of the offence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the imposition of a minimum term was appropriate in light of Goussis's criminal history and the nature of the offence. In reaching its decision, the court considered a range of factors, including the severity of the offence, the degree of premeditation and planning involved, and the lack of remorse shown by Goussis. The court also took into account Goussis's prior conviction for attempted murder, as well as his subsequent conviction for another murder committed after the offence for which he was being sentenced.

After considering all of these factors, the court determined that the imposition of a minimum term was appropriate in this case. The court found that the offence was of extreme severity, and that Goussis had shown a clear lack of remorse for his actions. The court also noted that Goussis's prior criminal history, including his conviction for attempted murder, was a significant factor in its decision. The court concluded that the minimum term was necessary to ensure that Goussis was adequately punished for his crimes, and to send a strong message to others who might be tempted to commit similar offences.

The court ordered that Goussis be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment for the murder of the victim. The exact length of the minimum term was not specified in the court's decision, but it was made clear that Goussis would not be eligible for parole until he had served a significant period of time behind bars. The court also noted that Goussis's prior and subsequent convictions would be taken into account when determining his overall sentence.

Orders