Legal Research
Cases
R v Lambaditis

R v Lambaditis

Case [2015] NSWSC 746 12 June 2015

Discount for guilty plea

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lambaditis [2015] NSWSC 746
Hearing dates: 5 June 2015
Decision date: 12 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 6 years and 9 months to commence on 3 November 2013 and to expire on 2 August 2020.
There will be a parole period of 2 years and 3 months to commence on 3 August 2020 and to expire on 2 November 2022.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Early plea of guilty – Offender under the influence of alcohol – Offender punched the deceased – Deceased died from head injuries suffered – Deceased was not known to the offender – Attack was unprovoked – Offence of assault on Form 1 taken into account – Discount of 25% allowed for guilty plea – Offence at least mid-range of objective seriousness – Offender had no history of violence – Offender showed remorse – No special circumstances – No variation to standard non-parole period warranted – Consideration of R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 – Need for general deterrence in cases of this type – Sentenced to 9 years imprisonment – 6 years and 3 months non-parole period
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Attorney-General under s 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2005] EWCA Crim 812
Donaczy v R [2010] NSWCCA 143
Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105
R v Dyer [2014] NSWSC 1809
R v Field [2014] NSWSC 1797
R v Lane (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 118
R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v Matthews [2015] NSWSC 49
Regina v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184
Regina v KT [2007] NSWSC 83
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Nicholas Lambaditis (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Bailey (Crown)
E Ozen (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Australian Criminal Law Specialists Pty Ltd (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/331450

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 26 September 2014, the offender, Nicholas Lambaditis was charged on indictment that on 3 November 2013 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales he did murder Lucio Rodrigues.
The proceedings were listed for trial commencing on 9 March 2015. On that date there was a voir dire hearing, following which the Crown elected not to proceed on the indictment.
Accordingly, the offender was charged on indictment on 9 March 2015 that he on 3 November 2013 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did unlawfully kill Lucio Rodrigues.
On that date, the offender entered a plea of guilty to the offence of manslaughter. The proceedings were then stood over for a sentence hearing on 5 June 2015.

Background

The relevant facts on sentence were set out in a document…

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 Lambaditis

Details

AGLC: R v Lambaditis [2015] NSWSC 746
Case: [2015] NSWSC 746
Decision Date: 12 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lambaditis, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter following an incident where he punched the deceased, resulting in fatal head injuries. The court heard that the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, attacked the deceased without any prior acquaintance or provocation. The defendant had entered a plea of guilty at an early stage, which entitled him to a discount in sentencing. The defendant's lack of a prior history of violence, his expression of remorse, and the unprovoked nature of the assault were factors considered by the court in determining the sentence.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter, taking into account the discount for the early guilty plea, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court also had to consider the need for general deterrence in cases of this nature and whether any special circumstances existed that might warrant a variation from the standard non-parole period. The decision in R v Loveridge was cited as a relevant precedent in assessing these factors.

The court concluded that the offence was at least mid-range in terms of its objective seriousness. The discount for the early guilty plea was set at 25%, and the offender's lack of history of violence and expression of remorse were mitigating factors. However, no special circumstances were found that would warrant a variation from the standard non-parole period. The court sentenced the defendant to nine years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and three months, to appropriately balance the need for punishment and general deterrence.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of all relevant factors, including the offender's personal circumstances, the need for general deterrence, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter.

Orders