Legal Research
Cases
R v Kariolakis

R v Kariolakis

Case [2023] NSWDC 350 1 September 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kariolakis [2023] NSWDC 350
Hearing dates: 21 July 2023
Date of orders: 1 September 2023
Decision date: 01 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [88].

Catchwords:
Crime - sentence – multiple offences - assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon – steal from the person – robbery armed with offensive weapon – deal with property proceeds of crime.

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

Cases Cited:
BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 128
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010); 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37
R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown (Department of Public Prosecutions)
The offender (Valandis Kariolakis)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Pace (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Ms D Panagiotopoulos

File Number(s): 2022/223639
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following three offences to which he has pleaded guilty:-

H89946627/5: Assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment.

H89946672/2: Robbery armed with offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment.

H89946672/3: Robbery armed with offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment.

There is a Form 1 attached to Sequence 3, being Sequence 4 - an offence of deal with property proceeds of crime less than $100,000 pursuant to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. There is further Form 1 attached to Sequence 5, namely Sequence 6 - an offence of steal from the person value less than $2,000 pursuant to s94(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of each of the matters on the Forms 1, and has asked that each be taken into account on sentence.
Each of the offences occurred on 29 July 2022. The offender was arrested on that day and has been in custody on remand ever since. He entered an early plea of guilty in the Local Court and was committed for sentence on 30 March 2023.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 21 July 2023. The Crown sentence summary became Exhibit A and it included a statement of agreed facts which may be summarised as follows.
At about 4.17pm on Friday 29 July 2022…

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 Kariolakis

Details

AGLC: R v Kariolakis [2023] NSWDC 350
Case: [2023] NSWDC 350
Decision Date: 01 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, an adult male, was charged with multiple offences including assault with intent to rob armed with an offensive weapon, steal from the person, robbery armed with an offensive weapon, and deal with property proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the law and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge erred in applying the law in relation to the multiple offences, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to consider the principles of double jeopardy, the nature of the offences, and the sentencing principles applicable to multiple offences. The appellant argued that the offences were not properly distinguished, resulting in a misapplication of the law. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances.

The court examined the principles of double jeopardy and the applicability of the principle of ‘same evidence’ in the context of multiple offences. The court held that the trial judge correctly identified and distinguished the offences, and there was no misapplication of the law. Regarding the sentence, the court considered the severity of the offences, the appellant’s criminal history, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The orders included a full-time imprisonment term, details of which are provided in the reasons for judgment at [88].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [88].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Kariolakis [2023] NSWDC 350

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Dong
[2021] NSWCCA 82 Para 42

…n suffering a mental illness which makes them a potential danger may be a very significant factor to be considered in sentencing, relying on R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 at [48] per Beech-Jones J (as his Honour then was).…
Chung v R
[2017] NSWCCA 48 Para 5

…ion, this is of little assistance to an offender where, for the time the incident did extend, it would have been frightening to the victim: Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 at [77].…
DS v R
[2017] NSWCCA 37 Para 47

…the offending as being multiple distinct acts of criminality at distinct locations and to acknowledge the harm done to each victim, relying on DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37 and BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 128.…
R v Van Ryn
[2016] NSWCCA 1

…v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown (Department of Public Prosecutions) The offender (Valandis Kariolaki…
BT v R
[2012] NSWCCA 128 Para 47

…ple distinct acts of criminality at distinct locations and to acknowledge the harm done to each victim, relying on DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37 and BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 128.…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194

…128 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010); 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37 R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; […
R v Henry
[2007] NSWCCA 90 Para 43

…[23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting in a reduction in the sentence whic…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 85

…In Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Howie J said at [27]:…
R v Pearson
[2004] NSWCCA 129 Para 51

…]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting in…
R v Speeding
[2001] NSWCCA 105 Para 1

…rmed robbery do not alleviate the seriousness of the offence, and the possible traumatic effect of the offence: R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105.”…
Miller v R
[1999] WASCA 66 Para 254

…the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] N…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111

…ons (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010); 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37 R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Par…
R v Jiminez
[1999] WASCA 7 Para 23

…e reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also have t…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 35

…In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending the Crown submitted the court would have regard to the guideline judgment of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 11. The Crown submitted that each of the robbery offences fell within the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness, noting that on…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 11 Para 35

…he objective seriousness of the offending the Crown submitted the court would have regard to the guideline judgment of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 11. The Crown submitted that each of the robbery offences fell within the lower end of the mid-range of objective seriousness, noting that one of the ch…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…6; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown (Department of Public Prosecutions) The offender (Valandis Kariolakis) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Pace (for the offe…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 16)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kariolakis [2023] NSWDC 350
Hearing dates:	21 July 2023
Date of orders:	1 September 2023
Decision date:	01 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [88].
Catchwords:	Crime - sentence – multiple offences - assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon – steal from the person – robbery armed with offensive weapon – deal with property proceeds of crime.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 128 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010); 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 DS v R [2017] NSWCCA 37 R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Speeding (2001) 121 A Crim R 426; [2001] NSWCCA 105 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown (Department of Public Prosecutions) The offender (Valandis Kariolakis)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Pace (for the offender) Solicitors: Ms D Panagiotopoulos
File Number(s):	2022/223639
Publication restriction:	Nil.