R v Katakouzinos - [2020] NSWDC 115

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Katakouzinos [2020] NSWDC 115
Hearing dates: 3/3/20, 9/3/20
Date of orders: 09 March 2020
Decision date: 09 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for two years nine months with a non-parole period of one year nine months.

Catchwords: Crime – Sentence – Affray- Demand money with menaces
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Stevens v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 152
Category: Sentence
Parties: DPP (Crown)
Zak Katakouzinos (Offender)
Representation: Mr M Dickinson (Solicitor) for Crown
Ms D Hawkins (Counsel) for the Offender

File Number(s): 2018/137224
Publication restriction: None

sentence

The offender, Zak Katakouzinos, is for sentence in relation to an offence of Affray committed on 10 September 2017 which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. In addition he asks that the Court take into account two other offences, one being another offence of affray and the other an offence of demand money with menaces. He pleaded guilty to the substantive affray offence at an early stage and therefore is entitled to a discount of 25% on any sentence that I impose.
As a result of these offences the offender also admits to the breach of a good behaviour bond imposed on him in the Local Court on 14 December 2016 and to the breach of a Community Correction Order imposed in the Local Court on 28 November 2018. In relation to the affray offence for which I must sentence Mr Katakouzinos an Agreed Statement of Facts has been admitted on sentence which sets out the circumstances of that affray offence which relevantly are as follows:
At about 8.17pm on 10 September 2017 the offender and three associates, Karoush Atashi, Harrison Clarke and Michael Watt arrived at The Ettamogah hotel at Kellyville Ridge. At about 9.15pm they were joined by another associate Alen Mansour and an unidentified female. Prior to the arrival of the offender and his associates, four other men, Connor O’Donnell, Mark Furey, Connor Furey and Mark McGrory had been drinking at the hotel for some hours. As a result they were all intoxicated.
None of these men were known to the offender or his group. At about quarter to 10 that night one of the four men, Connor O’Donnell, made some sort of sexual advance towards a female who was part of this offender’s group. In response, the group of men, including this offender, began shouting at O’Donnell and moving towards him. Mark Furey attempted to move O’Donnell away from the approaching group of men but they prevented him from doing this. A group of four men, including this offender, Alen Mansour, Harrison Clarke and Karoush Atashi continued to close in on O’Donnell, some of them swinging punches and others brandishing chairs.
In the affray which then followed, it was not possible to determine which of the offenders landed precisely which blows. One of the offenders, however, threw a glass at Connor Furey which missed. However, Mr…

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 Katakouzinos

Details

AGLC: R v Katakouzinos [2020] NSWDC 115
Case: [2020] NSWDC 115
Decision Date: 09 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Katakouzinos involved the appellant who was charged and subsequently convicted of affray and demanding money with menaces. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was involved in a physical altercation that resulted in an affray charge, and additionally, he was found to have threatened another individual with harm in order to obtain money, leading to the charge of demanding money with menaces. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The legal issues before the court were the severity of the sentence imposed and whether it was appropriate in the context of the crimes committed. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in his case, such as his otherwise good character and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and the need to deter such behaviour.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the appellant's case. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court concluded that while there were mitigating factors, the seriousness of the crimes, particularly the use of violence and threats, warranted a significant custodial sentence. However, the court found that the original sentence was too severe and reduced it to two years and nine months with a non-parole period of one year and nine months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment for two years nine months with a non-parole period of one year nine months.

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 Katakouzinos [2020] NSWDC 115
Hearing dates:	3/3/20, 9/3/20
Date of orders:	09 March 2020
Decision date:	09 March 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment for two years nine months with a non-parole period of one year nine months.
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence – Affray- Demand money with menaces
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Stevens v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 152
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	DPP (Crown) Zak Katakouzinos (Offender)
Representation:	Mr M Dickinson (Solicitor) for Crown Ms D Hawkins (Counsel) for the Offender
File Number(s):	2018/137224
Publication restriction:	None