R v Katsis

Case [2015] NSWSC 1890


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Katsis [2015] NSWSC 1890
Hearing dates:27 November 2015
Date of orders: 11 December 2015
Decision date: 11 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:

1. For the offence in count 1 of the indictment, sexual intercourse with Doris Fenbow without consent, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 years to commence on 12 September 2014 and to expire 11 September 2020.

2. For the offence in count 2 of the indictment, murder of Doris Fenbow, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 years to commence on 12 September 2014 and to expire 11 September 2034 with a non-parole period of 15 years to commence on 12 September 2014 and to expire 11 September 2029.

3. Alexis Katsis will be eligible to be considered for release on parole at the expiry of the non-parole period in respect of count 2 on 11 September 2029.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – intention to kill – sexual intercourse without consent – sentencing many years after commission of crimes – not guilty plea – young offender – vulnerable victim – offences in victim’s home – fires ignited – no remorse or contrition – fabricated narrative – no subsequent offending of same nature – consideration of comparable cases for consistency
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crime Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462
Hoai Vinh Tran v R [2011] NSWCCA 116
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213; (2013) 234 A Crim R 576
R v Bossie (Supreme Court (NSW), Studdert J, 16 April 1992, unrep)
R v Dargin [2000] NSWSC 710
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Fleming [2007] NSWSC 673
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312
R v Matthews [2014] NSWSC 608
R v Sharpe (Supreme Court (NSW), Wood J, 9 September 1999, unrep)
R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 112
RL v R [2015] NSWCCA 106
SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94
Wong v R (2001) CLR 584
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Alexis Katsis (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Trevor Bailey (Crown)
Bill Neild (Offender)

  Solicitors:
Kate Gauld (Crown)
Kathy Hunter (Offender)
File Number(s):2014/157715
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. Alexis Katsis is to be sentenced for the rape and murder of Doris Elizabeth Fenbow on 3 September 1988. He was found guilty of those crimes on 21 October 2015 at the conclusion of his trial by jury over 12 days commencing 6 October 2015. I refer to the first count on the indictment as a charge of rape by way of shorthand for the offence of having sexual intercourse without the victim’s consent, knowing that she had not consented, contrary to s 61D(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  2. The maximum penalty for an offence against s 61D(1) in September 1988 was 8…

Continue reading R v Katsis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Katsis [2015] NSWSC 1890
Case
[2015] NSWSC 1890
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Katsis, the respondent was convicted of the murder of a woman, as well as other offences including sexual intercourse without consent. The respondent was sentenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The nature of the appeal was the length of the sentence imposed. The respondent argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate, considering factors such as his age at the time of the offence, the absence of subsequent offending of the same nature, and the fact that he had not shown remorse or contrition.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the relevant sentencing principles and factors. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offences, the respondent’s age and background, the absence of remorse or contrition, and the need for consistency with comparable cases. The court was also required to ensure that the sentence reflected the community’s standards of morality and justice.

The court found that the sentence was not excessive or disproportionate, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the offences were of high moral blameworthiness, as they involved the intentional killing of a vulnerable victim in her own home, as well as sexual assault. The court also noted that the respondent had fabricated a narrative to cover up his crimes, and had shown no remorse or contrition. The court held that the sentence was consistent with comparable cases, and that the need for consistency with those cases did not outweigh the need for an appropriate sentence in this case. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.