R v Pambris - [2018] NSWDC 24

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pambris [2018] NSWDC 24
Hearing dates: 20th February 2018 – 21st February 2018
Date of orders: 22 February 2018
Decision date: 22 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
The accused is found not guilty on Count 1 and will proceed to sentence him on counts 2 and 3.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Judge alone trial – Home invasion – Dealing with proceeds of crime – Witness involved in crime has no relevant memory despite getting a discount for promising to give evidence against the accused.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: R v Pambris
Representation:
Counsel:
G. Gee – The Crown
M. Ainsworth – The accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
Astoria Lawyers – The Accused

File Number(s): 2015/126486
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the correct name of Spiros Dimakos (pseudonym) or of any material which may tend to identify him.

Judgment

On 6th of February 2014 a man by the name of Steven Emerton was the subject of a serious home invasion. A friend of his, who I will give the pseudonym of Spiros Dimakos, turned up at his front door pursuant to an arrangement earlier made. When Mr Emerton opened the door to let Mr Dimakos in a number of men pushed Mr Dimakos through the door. One of these men threatened Mr Emerton, before he and Mr Dimakos were tied up. Mr Emerton couldn’t describe anyone because of the use of balaclavas. Mr Emerton could hear the sounds of his home being searched and when there was no noise for some time he released himself and Mr Dimakos before calling the police. A substantial amount of property was taken from Mr Emerton’s home.
When police came Mr Dimakos told them that he was a victim of the home invasion but, as it turns out, Mr Dimakos was a perpetrator. He later pleaded guilty to being criminally involved in the offence. He signed “Agreed Facts” in which he admitted not only his involvement but also nominated Steven Pambris as being involved as well. The Statement of Facts recorded that Mr Pambris together with another unknown male were the people who did what Mr Emerton described.
Shortly after the home invasion Mr Pambris had pawned some of the proceeds. On the 11th of February he pawned two of Mr Emerton’s rings and the following day he pawned Mr Emerton’s iPhone 3. Mr Pambris used his passport as identification when pawning these items so identifying him as the person who did that was relatively easy.
As a result of the events I have described Mr Pambris was charged with three offences: the first related to the home invasion; the second concerned dealing with the 2 rings pawned on the 11th of February, them being the proceeds of crime; and the third was a similar offence relating to the iPhone. He pleaded not guilty to the first count but…

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 Pambris

Details

AGLC: R v Pambris [2018] NSWDC 24
Case: [2018] NSWDC 24
Decision Date: 22 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pambris involved a defendant charged with home invasion and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone at the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was accused of breaking into a residence, stealing money and property, and subsequently dealing with the proceeds of this crime. A witness, who was also involved in the crime, provided evidence against the defendant, despite having no relevant memory of the events due to intoxication. This witness had received a discount on charges in exchange for their testimony.

The legal issues before the court involved the credibility of the witness and the sufficiency of the evidence presented to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to determine whether the witness's testimony was reliable, given their lack of memory, and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's involvement in the crime. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of the witness's intoxication on their ability to provide a reliable account of the events.

The court concluded that the witness's testimony was not reliable due to their lack of memory and the impact of intoxication. The court found that the witness's account was inconsistent and unreliable, and therefore, the evidence against the defendant was insufficient to prove guilt on the charge of home invasion. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of this charge. However, the court found sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's involvement in dealing with the proceeds of the crime, and the defendant was found guilty on these counts.

The court ordered that the defendant be found not guilty on Count 1 and proceeded to sentence him on counts 2 and 3. The final orders of the court were that the defendant would be sentenced for the charges of dealing with the proceeds of crime, while the charge of home invasion was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found not guilty on Count 1 and will proceed to sentence him on counts 2 and 3.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Pambris [2018] NSWDC 24
Hearing dates:	20th February 2018 – 21st February 2018
Date of orders:	22 February 2018
Decision date:	22 February 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The accused is found not guilty on Count 1 and will proceed to sentence him on counts 2 and 3.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Judge alone trial – Home invasion – Dealing with proceeds of crime – Witness involved in crime has no relevant memory despite getting a discount for promising to give evidence against the accused.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	R v Pambris
Representation:	Counsel: G. Gee – The Crown M. Ainsworth – The accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Astoria Lawyers – The Accused
File Number(s):	2015/126486
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the correct name of Spiros Dimakos (pseudonym) or of any material which may tend to identify him.