SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LYBEROPOULOS
[2017] SASC 92
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Peek
20 June 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
Application for permission to appeal against sentence.
The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to s 19A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. A District Court Judge sentenced the applicant to a single sentence of nine years imprisonment, reduced from ten years on account of the applicant’s late guilty plea, with a non-parole period of six years nine months.
The applicant sought permission to appeal on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Held per Peek J (refusing permission to appeal):
Having regard to the relevant authorities, all of the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the applicant’s continued flouting of the law concerning trafficking in cannabis, the sentence is clearly within the range of sentencing discretion that was available to the sentencing Judge. It is not reasonably arguable that the sentence is manifestly excessive, and accordingly, permission to appeal is refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19A, referred to.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; R v Hunt; R v Yates [2012] SASCFC 74; R v Mema [2011] SASCFC 56; R v Mustac [2013] SASCFC 21; R v Faehrmann (2014) 118 SASR 549; R v Robins [2016] SASCFC 55; R v Hucks [2016] SASCFC 92; R v Skinner [2016] SASCFC 106; R v Young [2016] SASCFC 102; R v Donald [2016] SASCFC 117; R v Standley [2016] SASCFC 141; R v Dell [2016] SASCFC 156, considered.
R v LYBEROPOULOS
[2017] SASC 92Criminal
PEEK J.
The applicant pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to s 19A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment.
The sentencing of the applicant
On 6 April 2017, the applicant was sentenced by District Court Judge Tilmouth to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years nine months for the three offences. The Judge summarised the facts thus:
The first, count 6, relates to the supply of 10 pounds of cannabis organised by you for delivery interstate to the recipient NS, between late May 2014 and 1 June 2014 as detected by telephone intercepts. The second, count 8, involves the supply of 14 pounds of cannabis from South Australia to the Northern Territory to NS between mid June and mid July 2014. The third count, count 10, took place between mid and the end of July 2014 and involved the seizure of 14 pounds of cannabis at the Darwin Airport, the recipient again being NS. It is further accepted that you played a minor role inasmuch as you made telephone contact in relation to an uncharged…
Continue reading R v Lyberopoulos
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lyberopoulos [2017] SASC 92
- Case
- [2017] SASC 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, such that it warranted the grant of permission to appeal. The Court had to consider the range of sentencing discretion available to the District Court Judge, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the applicant's history of similar offending. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, while the Crown maintained that the sentence was within the appropriate range given the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's history of reoffending.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that there were a number of relevant recent authorities and invited the parties to provide a list of authorities if they wished. Both parties provided additional authorities by email on 31 May 2016. The Court considered these authorities, along with the personal circumstances of the applicant and the fact that the applicant had repeatedly flouted the law concerning trafficking in cannabis, including breaching recognisance and parole schemes. The Court concluded that the sentence was within the range of sentencing discretion available to the District Court Judge and that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
No appeal against the sentence will be heard, and the applicant must serve the sentence imposed by the District Court.
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
Established by: PEEK J
The Court indicated that there were a number of relevant recent authorities and gave the parties permission to forward to the Court a list of authorities if they wished to do so. Both parties drew additional authorities to the attention of the Court by email on 31 May 2017. Consideration Relevant recent decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal include the following: R v Mema,[3] R v Hunt and Yates,[4] R v Mustac,[5] R v Faehrmann et ors,[6] R v Robins,[7] R v Hucks,[8] R v Skinner,[9] R v Young,[10]R v Donald et ors,[11] R v Standley[12] and R v Dell.[13] [3] [2011] SASCFC 56.[4] [2012] SASCFC 74.[5] [2013] SASCFC 21.[6] (2014) 118 SASR 549.[7] [2016] SASCFC 55.[8] [2016] SASCFC 92.[9] [2016] SASCFC 106.[10] [2016] SASCFC 102.[11] [2016] SASCFC 117.[12] [2016] SASCFC 141.[13] [2016] SASCFC 156. I have regard to the authorities (including the above decisions), to all of the personal circumstances of the applicant and to the fact that the applicant’s continued flouting of the law concerning trafficking in cannabis (including his breaching of recognisance and parole schemes) demonstrates a clear need for the personal deterrence that has not been previously achieved by the imposition of the previous sentences for similar offending on three separate occasions.Disposition The head sentence for the three offences is a heavy one but it is clearly within the range of sentencing discretion that was available to the Judge. It is not reasonably arguable that the sentence is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances. I dismiss the application for permission to appeal.