SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Pandelis [2009] QCA 25
PARTIES:
R
v
PANDELIS, Simeon
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 319 of 2008
DC No 2556 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
20 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 February 2009
JUDGES:
Keane and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant appeals against a sentence of six years imprisonment on one count of unlawful sodomy against a 16 year old boy – where applicant was on a suspended sentence for similar offences at the time of the offending – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – PRIOR CRIMINALITY – where applicant had substantial serious criminal history involving similar offences – whether sentence was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – PURPOSE OF SENTENCE – DETERRENCE – PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY – whether other potential victims require protection
Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld), s 36
R v Main [1993] QCA 408, cited
R v Murphy [1997] QCA 45, citedCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for theRespondent
KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Atkinson J. I agree with her Honour's reasons and with the order proposed by her Honour.
CHESTERMAN JA: I agree, for the reasons given by Atkinson J, that the application should be dismissed.
ATKINSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court of Queensland on 11 November 2008. On that date he was sentenced to six years imprisonment on one count of unlawful sodomy committed on 5 October 2006. Pre-sentence custody of 314 days was declared as time served under the sentence. The applicant had been convicted of sodomy on being found guilty by a jury on 7 August 2008. An appeal against conviction was abandoned.
The applicant committed the offence on a 16 year old boy whom he had met on the day of the offence. The complainant was a naïve, immature sixteen year old who lived rough on the streets. The applicant was 49 years old. The complainant was introduced to the applicant by some other young people and spent the day in the company of the applicant who bought alcohol for the complainant and his teenage friends. At the end of the day the applicant invited the complainant to go with him in his car when he went to pick…
Continue reading R v Pandelis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Pandelis [2009] QCA 25
- Case
- [2009] QCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the applicant's substantial criminal history involving similar offences. The court was also required to assess the purpose of sentencing, including the need for deterrence and protection of the community, as well as the potential risk to other potential victims.
The court examined the circumstances of the offence, including the nature and severity of the crime, and the applicant's criminal history. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence, and it was not manifestly excessive. The court also considered the need for deterrence and protection of the community, but found that these factors did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed
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.