R v Goussis - [2006] VSC 168

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1440 of 2005

THE QUEEN

EVANGELOS GOUSSIS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3-5, 7, 10-14, 17-21, 24-29, 31 October, 2-3 November 2005 and 20 January 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Goussis (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 168

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Victim shot in head in context of other gangland killings – Body dumped in dead-end street – 20 years prison 15 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. Parsons S.C. with Ms R. Carlin	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Goussis	Mr R. van de Wiel Q.C. with Mr A. Halphen	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Evangelos Goussis. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder on 8 May 2004 of Sean Vincent also known as Lewis Caine. I will refer to the deceased after this as Lewis Caine, by which name he was better known.

Before I turn to the circumstances of the murder, I make thepreliminary point that there are reasons for the media to be somewhat circumspect in what is published as to these sentencing remarks. There are other trials still to be heard.

The body of Lewis Caine was found on the roadway in a dead end street in Brunswick shortly after 11 p.m. on the night of 8 May 2004. He had been shot once in the face, just under the right eye. Shortly prior to that shot being fired, you and Keith Faure had been drinking with Lewis Caine for some time at a Carlton hotel. That drinking session had been arranged at a time, and in a context, when there was much publicity about a series of gangland killings. All three of you had close contacts in the camps that were seen to be engaged in a series of retributive shootings. In one camp was the now dead Mario Condello. In the other was the now disappeared Tony Mokbel. All three of you had reasons to be guarded as to where the loyalties of other contacts lay, and to be interested in gathering intelligence. In early May 2004, Lewis Caine had a very close link to one camp. At around that time, the links of you and Keith Faure appeared to be closer to the camp of Mario Condello. That was a matter of some moment, given that Lewis Caine had raised with you the possible execution of Mario Condello. Lewis Caine seems to have chosen to meddle in the gangland war, and to have invited you to meddle too. Whatever the precise nature of the links, and the proposed meddling, gangland killings and blurred loyalties were a significant part of the context in which you were drinking with Lewis Caine.

There was before the jury evidence that that time together at the hotel was a friendly drinking session. There…

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 [2006] VSC 168
Case: [2006] VSC 168
Decision Date: 3 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Goussis, the Federal Court of Australia addressed a case involving the sentencing of Goussis for his involvement in a gangland killing. Goussis had been convicted of the murder of a victim, who was shot in the head and subsequently dumped in a dead-end street, a crime that formed part of a series of gangland killings. The primary focus of the case was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Goussis, taking into account the brutal nature of the crime and its connection to the broader context of gang-related violence.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the severity of the crime, the need for deterrence and retribution, and the appropriate length of the custodial sentence. The court had to balance these considerations with the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the gravity of the crime while also considering any mitigating factors. The court also had to determine the non-parole period, which is the minimum time that must be served before an offender becomes eligible for parole.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. It acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, noting that it was part of a larger pattern of gang-related violence. The court considered the impact of the crime on the victim and their family, the community's need for protection, and the importance of deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that a 20-year prison sentence with a non-parole period of 15 years was appropriate. This sentence aimed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime while also providing some hope for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders of the court mandated that Goussis serve a total of 20 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 15 years. This decision underscored the court's commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed.

Orders