R v Nissirios & Warfe - [2009] VSC 129

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No 1435 of 2008

THE QUEEN

ANGELA NISSIRIOS (Also known as Angela Verykios)
YVONNE WARFE

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	19,27 February 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Nissirios and Warfe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 129

---

Pleas of Guilty – conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice – S 321 Crimes Act1958 – financial motivation – assistance enabling offender to flee overseas – assistance enabling offender to continue criminal activities – co operation with prosecuting authorities – previous good character – early plea – family relationship with primary conspirator – suspended term of imprisonment not appropriate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. C. Barbagallo	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused Nissirios	Mr. P Dunn Q.C.	Dowsley and Associates
For the Accused Warfe	Mr. W. Toohey	Vassis and Co

HER HONOUR:

You, Angela Nissirios (also known as Angela Verykios) and you Yvonne Warfe have each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice at Melbourne and divers other places between 16 October 2006 and 11 November 2006. Pursuant to s 321 of the Crimes Act 1958 the maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.

In relation to these pleas, I find that you both entered your pleas at an early time, which is also accepted by the Crown.

You have each made a statement or statements and have given evidence during your plea hearings that you will if required give evidence in any trial in accord with those statements. I take your co operation with the authorities, and the early stage at which that co operation was offered, as a significant factor in your favour when determining the appropriate sentence.

You Angela Nissirios were born on 1 April 1962 and you are currently 47 years of age. You were 44 at the time of the commission of the offence. You Yvonne Warfe were born on 7 March 1974 and you are currently 35 years of age. You were 32 at the time of the commission of offence.

Antonios Sajih Mokbel absconded on 20 March 2006 from his trial which was being conducted before the Honourable Justice Gillard in the Supreme Court. Mokbel was convicted in his absence on 31 March 2006 and sentenced to a term of 12 years imprisonment.

You two, together with at least six other accused persons were involved in assisting Mokbel to abscond from the Victorian jurisdiction and, indeed, to flee from Australia. Those other persons are Byron Pantazis, George Elias, Chafic Issa, Spiros Katopodis, Youseff Zeidan and Evette Zeidan. All of those persons had a role in respect of Mokbel being able to leave Victoria and ultimately flee Australia whilst warrants were in existence for his arrest. The Crown have tendered a lengthy summary in respect of this matter which I have made Exhibit 1.…

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 Nissirios & Warfe

Details

AGLC: R v Nissirios & Warfe [2009] VSC 129
Case: [2009] VSC 129
Decision Date: 17 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nissirios & Warfe, the defendants were charged with conspiring to pervert the course of public justice. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendants, Nissirios and Warfe, pleaded guilty to charges related to their involvement in assisting an individual to evade law enforcement and continue criminal activities. The case involved complex legal issues surrounding the application of Section 321 of the Crimes Act 1958, which pertains to conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.

The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty for the defendants, considering various factors, including the defendants' financial motivation, their role in assisting the primary offender to flee overseas, and their subsequent cooperation with prosecuting authorities. Additionally, the court had to assess the defendants' previous good character, their early plea, and the familial relationship between the defendants and the primary conspirator. The court had to balance these factors to determine whether a suspended term of imprisonment would be appropriate in this case.

The court found that, despite the defendants' early plea and their cooperation with authorities, their actions had significantly contributed to the primary offender's ability to evade justice and continue criminal activities. The court also considered the defendants' financial motivation and the familial relationship with the primary conspirator. Ultimately, the court concluded that a suspended term of imprisonment would not be appropriate in this case. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the defendants' involvement in perverting the course of public justice.

The final orders of the court were that Nissirios and Warfe be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length of the sentence and any parole conditions. The court's decision emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their involvement in perverting the course of public justice, particularly in cases where such actions facilitate the continuation of criminal activities.

Orders