Legal Research
Cases
R v Kyroglou

R v Kyroglou

Case [1999] NSWCCA 106 12 May 1999

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Break, Enter and Steal

Armed Robbery

Robbery

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v KYROGLOU & TSOUKATOS [1999] NSWCCA 106

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60595/98; 60596/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18/03/99-19/03/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 May 1999

PARTIES :

Bill Kyroglou
Theo Tsoukatos

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 4; Newman J at 7; Hulme J at 64; Simpson J at 83

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0136; 98/21/0135

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Prowse ADCJ

COUNSEL: S J Odgers (Kyroglou)
S J Odgers (Tsoukatos)
P G Berman (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Konstan Lawyers (Kyroglou)
Konstan Lawyers (Tsoukatos)
R Gray (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; sentencing; break, enter and steal, s112(1) Crimes Act 1900; armed robbery, s97(1) Crimes Act 1900; robbery, s94 Crimes Act 1900; appropriate sentence; double jeopardy; discretion to dismiss Crown appeal despite inadequate sentence

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)

DECISION: KYROGLOU; Appeal dismissed; TSOUKATOS; Appeal against sentence imposed for offence of armed robbery contrary to s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900; 1 Appeal allowed; 2 Substitution of sentence of penal servitude for five years consisting of a minimum term of one year to commence on 14 February 1998 and to expire on 13 February 1999, and an additional term of four years to commence on 14 February 1999 and expire on 13 February 2003.; Appeal against sentence imposed for the offence of break, enter and steal contrary to s112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900; 1 Appeal dismissed; Appeal against sentence imposed for the offence of robbery contrary to s94 of the Crimes Act 1900; 1 Appeal dismissed

- 44 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60595/98
60596/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
WOOD CJ at CL
NEWMAN J
HULME J
SIMPSON J
Wednesday 12 May 1999

REGINA v Bill KYROGLOU
REGINA v Theo TSOUKATOS
JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I have read in draft the reasons of Newman J, Simpson J and the additional observations of Wood CJ at CL. I agree with what each of their Honours have said about the errors of principle made by the sentencing judge and the manifest inadequacy of the sentence he imposed.
2 In the case of Kyroglou, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Newman J.
3 In the case of Tsoukatos, I agree with Simpson J, for the reasons her Honour has given, that a return to full time custody would be unduly harsh in the circumstances as they now appear. I agree with the orders proposed by her Honour.
**********

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60595/98
60595/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
WOOD CJ at CL
NEWMAN J
HULME J
SIMPSON J

Wednesday 12 May 1999

REGINA v Theo TSOUKATOS
REGINA v Bill KYROGLOU

JUDGMENT

4 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft the judgment of Newman J, in relation to the respondent Kyroglou. I agree with the orders proposed and with the reasons given for them. I have also read in draft the judgments of Newman,…

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 Kyroglou

Details

AGLC: R v Kyroglou [1999] NSWCCA 106
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 106
Decision Date: 12 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Kyroglou, faced the Crown in a matter before the High Court, where the primary focus was on the adequacy of the sentence imposed following a series of criminal offences. The crimes in question included charges of breaking and entering and stealing, armed robbery, and ordinary robbery under various sections of the Crimes Act 1900. The court was tasked with examining whether the sentence met the necessary standards and whether there were grounds for the Crown to appeal despite the potential bar of double jeopardy.

The central legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing and the application of the law in relation to multiple offences committed during a single criminal episode. The court had to assess whether the cumulative sentence was appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the potential deterrent effect. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Crown could appeal on the basis that the sentence was inadequate, despite the risk of breaching the principle against double jeopardy, which generally prevents a defendant from being tried again for the same offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the severity and nature of the crimes committed, as well as the sentencing principles established in previous case law. The High Court concluded that while the principle of double jeopardy was a strong bar to a second appeal, the gravity of the offences and the inadequacy of the sentence provided exceptional circumstances that warranted the Crown's right to appeal. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentence and remitting the matter back to the lower court for resentencing.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the Crown appeal on the basis of an inadequate sentence, while simultaneously allowing the appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the necessity for a sentence that adequately reflects the gravity of the crimes committed, while also respecting the principle against double jeopardy. The matter was remitted to the lower court to determine an appropriate sentence in light of the court's findings.

Orders