R v Kalathas (Part 2) - [2021] NSWDC 753

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kalathas (Part 2) [2021] NSWDC 753
Hearing dates: 20 September 2021
Date of orders: 20 September 2021
Decision date: 20 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months, commencing on 24 August 2021 and expiring on 23 May 2022. A further period of imprisonment of seven months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 23 December 2022. The total sentence is one year and four months, comprising the non‑parole period and the balance of the sentence. Found special circumstances. Eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords:
See R v Mansour; R v Kalathas (Part 1) [2021] NSWDC 752

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Mansour; R v Kalathas (Part 1) [2021] NSWDC 752
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (NSW) - Crown
Themistoklis Demis Kalathas - Offender
Representation: Crown
Borosh
Offender
Stanton, G.J.

File Number(s): 2019/00214041
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 15 September 2021 there stood before me two accused, Mansour Mansour as well as the current offender, Themistoklis Demis Kalathas. At the end of the 15 September I convicted and sentenced Mr Mansour and adjourned Mr Kalathas’ further hearing until today. On the earlier occasion I recited the facts of the case and recited various aspects concerning the objective criminality in the case (see R v Mansour; R v Kalathas (Part 1) [2021] NSWDC 752). I have not canvassed thus far the personal circumstances of Mr Kalathas.

Personal circumstances: Kalathas

At the time of the offence Mr Kalathas was 36 years old. He is now 38 years old. The sources of information concerning him include two Sentencing Assessment Reports, one bearing date 16 August 2021 and another report bearing date 13 September 2021, which did not carry the matter any further. There is also a note from Mr Sam Hanna, a counsellor who commenced counselling the offender for anger management on 10 September 2021. However, that counselling generally takes between nine and 12 sessions and Mr Hanna was only able to tell me that he had seen the offender on one occasion. The other sources of information concerning the offender come from his current partner, Miss Katerina Skouras, his sister Cleo Kalathas, and there is a letter from the offender himself.
The offender was previously married. As a consequence of his marriage he has three sons who are aged 12, nine and seven. The eldest child is in secondary school, the younger two boys are in primary school. The children live during the week with their mother. They are collected after school on Friday by the offender, who drops his sons back to their mother’s residence on the evening of the Sunday of each weekend. With his current partner the offender has a child born…

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 Kalathas (Part 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Kalathas (Part 2) [2021] NSWDC 753
Case: [2021] NSWDC 753
Decision Date: 20 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of serious criminal charges in a previous hearing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing under Australian law. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to various aggravating and mitigating factors in the sentencing process. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, his age, his prospects for rehabilitation, and any other relevant factors. The court also had to determine whether special circumstances existed that would warrant a longer non-parole period.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offence, which involved a serious breach of public trust and had significant consequences for the victims. The court noted the appellant's previous criminal record and the lack of remorse shown. However, the court also took into account the appellant's age and his potential for rehabilitation. After careful consideration of all the factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one year and four months, with a non-parole period of nine months. The court found special circumstances existed, making the appellant eligible for parole consideration at the end of the non-parole period.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for one year and four months, with a non-parole period of nine months. The sentence was to commence on 24 August 2021 and expire on 23 December 2022. The appellant was found to have special circumstances, making him eligible for parole consideration at the end of the non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months, commencing on 24 August 2021 and expiring on 23 May 2022. A further period of imprisonment of seven months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 23 December 2022. The total sentence is one year and four months, comprising the non‑parole period and the balance of the sentence. Found special circumstances. Eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kalathas (Part 2) [2021] NSWDC 753
Hearing dates:	20 September 2021
Date of orders:	20 September 2021
Decision date:	20 September 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months, commencing on 24 August 2021 and expiring on 23 May 2022. A further period of imprisonment of seven months to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 23 December 2022. The total sentence is one year and four months, comprising the non‑parole period and the balance of the sentence. Found special circumstances. Eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
Catchwords:	See R v Mansour; R v Kalathas (Part 1) [2021] NSWDC 752
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Mansour; R v Kalathas (Part 1) [2021] NSWDC 752 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (NSW) - Crown Themistoklis Demis Kalathas - Offender
Representation:	Crown Borosh Offender Stanton, G.J.
File Number(s):	2019/00214041
Publication restriction:	Nil.