R v Mattheas - [2003] VSCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 89 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
CHRISTOS MATHEAS

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., VINCENT, J.A. and HARPER, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 October 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 221

---

Criminal law – Applicant found guilty on counts of stalking, attempting to pervert the course of justice, threat to kill, obstructing police and arson endangering life – Sentence of five years and five months imposed – No error in judge failing to sever arson count from other counts – Late application for leave to amend grounds of appeal alleging errors in judge failing to give propensity and Domican warnings refused – No exceptions taken at trial and no errors revealed – Sentence not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. W.H. Morgan-Payler, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. G.F. Meredith	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

Christos Matheas, now aged 29 years (“the applicant”), pleaded not guilty in the County Court in July 2001 to a presentment containing 11 counts alleging various offences against members of the Karkanis family. In essence the Crown’s allegation was that the applicant had waged his own personal vendetta against that family for a period in excess of two years; a period which concluded with the applicant setting fire to the Karkanis family home at about 3 a.m. on 14 November 2000.

The Karkanis family home was at Doveton, east of Melbourne. Living in that house at relevant times were Dimitra Karkanis, her daughter Dora Karkanis, and her son Chris Karkanis; together with Theodora Kariotakis (Dimitra’s mother) and Debbie Kariotakis (Dimitra’s sister). They were a family of Greek origin who used to be friendly with the applicant’s family who lived in the same locality. That friendship ended in 1998 when Dora Karkanis reported an incident to the local police which resulted in the applicant being charged with a criminal offence. This incident appears to have sparked off a feud between the Karkanis family and the applicant which, on 15 October 1998, resulted in Dora obtaining an “intervention order” from the local Dandenong Court against the applicant. It appears that, during the month preceding 15 October 1998, the Karkanis family had made complaints to the police that the applicant had been harassing them and threatening them. The charge against the applicant, initiated by Dora Karkanis, was dismissed in the Dandenong Court on 8 December 1999. Until and after that date, it was alleged that the applicant continued to harass the family members. This continued in various forms until 14 November 2000 when the Karkanis family home was set alight at about 3.20 a.m. following the hurling of an incendiary device through the window of the room in which Dora and Chris were sleeping. The barricade which had been erected by the family inside those windows prevented the spread of the fire and confined it to the alcove between the barricade and the…

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 Mattheas

Details

AGLC: R v Matheas [2003] VSCA 221
Case: [2003] VSCA 221
Decision Date: 19 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mattheas involved an applicant who was found guilty on multiple charges, including stalking, attempting to pervert the course of justice, threatening to kill, obstructing police, and arson endangering life. The case was heard in a relevant court of appeal, where the applicant sought to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed. The applicant's primary contention was that the trial judge had erred in failing to sever the arson count from the other charges, among other grounds. Additionally, the applicant made a late application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal to include new arguments regarding the judge's failure to provide certain warnings to the jury.

The court was required to determine whether there was any error in the trial judge's decision not to sever the arson count from the other charges. The court also had to assess whether the late application to amend the grounds of appeal should be granted, and if the judge's failure to give propensity and Domican warnings constituted a ground for appeal. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate.

The court found that there was no error in the judge's decision not to sever the arson count from the other charges, as the offences were part of a continuous course of conduct and were properly considered together. The court also ruled that the late application to amend the grounds of appeal should be refused, as no exceptions were taken at trial and no errors were revealed. Finally, the court determined that the sentence of five years and five months was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The applicant was therefore left to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders