R v Karatzas - [2019] VSC 658

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0164

THE QUEEN

ANASTASIOS KARATZAS

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Karatzas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 658

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Mid-range example of offence – D strangled wife with extension cord – No history of domestic violence – Offended during Major Depressive Episode – Verdins principles 1, 3 & 4 applicable – Remorse – Previously good character – No prior convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Elderly offender – Limited life expectancy – Sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 11 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford QC with Ms A French	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Tehan QC with Dr T Alexander	James Harris Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Anastasios Karatzas, after a short trial, you were convicted of the murder of your wife, Georgia Karatzas, on 20 November 2017.

The only issue in dispute at your trial was whether you killed her with murderous intent, that is, with an intention to kill or to cause really serious injury. There was unchallenged expert evidence that you were suffering a Major Depressive Episode at the time you killed your wife. In the days leading up to your offence, your daughter Dimitra was so concerned about your deteriorating mental health that she made an appointment for you to see your GP on 21 November 2017. There was also unchallenged evidence that you loved your wife to whom you had been married for nearly 50 years and that you had never been violent to her before. But tragically, on the morning of 20 November 2017, after a disagreement between you and your wife, you “snapped” and strangled her with an electrical extension cord until she collapsed on the laundry floor, whereupon you fled the scene. Unsurprisingly, the jury were satisfied that, when you strangled her, to death, you at least intended to inflict really serious injury. But let me now turn to a more detailed account of the lead-up to your offending on 20 November 2017, and the aftermath.

Circumstances of Offending

On Monday 20 November 2017, your daughter Dimitra, who lived with you, got up at about 6.15am and commenced getting ready for work. Soon afterwards, you and your wife Georgia got up and walked into the kitchen.

Dimitra noticed you pacing around before you eventually sat down. Dimitra heard Georgia say to you:

Stop thinking, you are tiring yourself out, everything will be okay.

You then drove Dimitra to her work at Chadstone Shopping Centre.

After dropping her at work, you returned home to retrieve some tools that you had forgotten to take with you to the renovations you were doing on another house you owned in Glen Iris. You walked into the laundry where your wife…

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 Karatzas

Details

AGLC: R v Karatzas [2019] VSC 658
Case: [2019] VSC 658
Decision Date: 26 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Karatzas, was convicted of the murder of his wife, which he committed by strangling her with an extension cord. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the appeal was whether the original sentence imposed on Karatzas was manifestly inadequate, considering the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed.

The court examined the principles set forth in Verdins to determine the appropriate sentence, specifically considering the mid-range example for murder, the absence of a history of domestic violence, the fact that the crime occurred during a Major Depressive Episode, and the offender's remorse. The court also took into account Karatzas' previously good character, the absence of prior convictions, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered his age and limited life expectancy as relevant factors in the sentencing process.

After careful consideration, the court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. It re-sentenced Karatzas to 16 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years. This decision was grounded in the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account mitigating factors.

Orders