R v Pandelis - [1998] QCA 245

[1998] QCA 245

COURT OF APPEAL

DEMACK J
HELMAN J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 115 of 1998

THE QUEEN

PANDELIS, Simeon Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 19/06/98

JUDGMENT

CHESTERMAN J: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 March 1998 to a charge that on 10 September 1996 at Brisbane he conspired together with Christopher Hansford, Raymond Holmes and Brian Storey to kill one John Hannay.

He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be released on parole after serving two and a half years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that insufficient consideration was given to his plea of guilty and that there was a disparity between the sentence imposed on him and those imposed on his co-conspirators. The second point was given more emphasis in oral argument.

The conspiracy involved, as well as those I have named, one Carriage. Its object was to murder John Hannay, the owner of two nightclubs in Brisbane. One of the conspirators claimed that he was owed money by Hannay and sought the aid of the others to threaten Hannay in order to induce him to pay.

The object of the conspiracy changed when the applicant suspected that Hannay had attempted to seduce another conspirator with whom the applicant was conducting a homosexual relationship.

According to the sentencing judge, the facts constituting the conspiracy showed an elaborate, premeditated and detailed plan which was intended to lead to the death of Hannay.

The means by which the conspirators planned to kill Hannay changed in detail and, according to the applicant's submission, may never have eventuated in a murder. The conspiracy cannot be regarded as fanciful. It was prevented from having a tragic end by the interception of the conspirators. When apprehended, the applicant and three other conspirators were in a car in which police found a sawn-off rifle, two concrete blocks and a set of chains.

The purpose to which the rifle was to be put is obvious. The blocks and chains were to be used to weight the victim's body which was to be thrown into the Brisbane River.

The sentencing judge rightly treated the matter as one of great seriousness. The sentence imposed, six years imprisonment, cannot for a moment be regarded as excessive. We have been provided examples of sentences imposed for broadly similar offences in this State, in Victoria and in Western Australia. Penalties have ranged from six years to eight years imprisonment.

The particular complaints made by the applicant are that his plea of guilty did not attract a sufficient discount and that he has been punished more severely than his co-conspirators.

I do not think there is any substance in the first point.

The applicant did not plead guilty until the morning of the day his trial was to commence. It was not an early plea.

It was, nevertheless, taken into account by the learned judge who said:

"What can be said in your favour is that you have pleaded guilty today on 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 Pandelis

Details

AGLC: R v Pandelis [1998] QCA 245
Case: [1998] QCA 245
Decision Date: 19/06/98

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pandelis, the applicant, Simeon Pandelis, pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder John Hannay on 10 September 1996 in Brisbane. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving two and a half years. Pandelis appealed against his sentence, arguing that insufficient consideration was given to his plea of guilty and that there was a disparity between his sentence and those of his co-conspirators. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's plea of guilty and whether there was an unjust disparity in the sentences between Pandelis and his co-conspirators.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had given proper consideration to the applicant's plea of guilty, noting that it saved the community a considerable expense and resulted in a slightly lesser head sentence and an earlier recommendation for parole. The Court also found that there was no unjust disparity in the sentences imposed on Pandelis and his co-conspirators, as the sentencing judge had taken into account significant differences in their criminal histories, ages, and roles in the conspiracy. The applicant had a substantial criminal history, including convictions for armed robbery and unlawfully wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, while his co-conspirators had either no previous criminal record or had been convicted of relatively minor offences. Furthermore, the applicant was the instigator and prime mover of the conspiracy, while one of his co-conspirators, Carriage, had co-operated with the authorities and potentially saved Hannay's life. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge's decision was appropriate and that there was no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal. The order of the Court was that the application is refused.

Orders