R v Pandelis

Case [2009] QCA 25


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 2007

DIVISION:

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, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the

Respondent

  1. 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.

  1. CHESTERMAN JA: I agree, for the reasons given by Atkinson J, that the application should be dismissed.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Pandelis [2009] QCA 25
Case
[2009] QCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pandelis involved the applicant, Pandelis, who appealed against a sentence of six years imprisonment imposed for one count of unlawful sodomy against a 16-year-old boy. At the time of the offence, Pandelis was already on a suspended sentence for similar offences. The applicant sought to challenge the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

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.