R v Papadopoulos - [2013] VSC 134

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.0087 of 2012

THE QUEEN

PERIKLIS PAPADOPOULOS

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 February 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Papadopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 134

---

Plea to manslaughter – currently aged 67 – prior conviction for voluntary homicide in Greece in ’92. Deceased - 82 year old Greek male shared house – dispute over garden bed – specific and general deterrence important.
Sentence: 11 years and 6 months – minimum 9 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Van De Weil QC	Robert Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Periklis Papadopoulos, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter of Andonios Mirtsopoulos; that killing occurring at Clayton on 20 October 2011.

You are currently 67 years of age, having been born on 1 January 1946 in Prodromos in Greece. You have a prior conviction, which is a prior conviction of real significance, being that on 27 January 1992 you were convicted at the Trikala Court of First Instance in Greece of voluntary homicide; illegal possession and carrying of a weapon; and insulting (being insulting words, as far as I can understand). You were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for voluntary homicide, the equivalent of a charge of murder; one year and 10 months imprisonment for illegal possession and the carrying of a weapon; and a fine of 50,000 drachmas for the offence of insulting. You remained in custody from that date, 27 January 1992, until you were released on 25 February 2008 – meaning that you served a total of 16 years before being released. The person that you murdered was your cousin, and, according to the information provided by your counsel, the offence occurred after you had been out hunting, had attended a tavern and consumed some alcohol. A minor argument broke out between yourself and your cousin, you left the tavern, you went to the boot of your vehicle, you retrieved a gun and you shot your cousin. I have no more elaborate information than that. A petty argument leading to a loss of life.

I have received four victim impact statements, being one each from Mr Mirtsopoulos’ children and ex wife. I have read them all. There was discussion in the victim impact statement about reconciliation between the deceased and the ex wife, but they had been divorced as I understand it for many years, and the two sons had not spoken to their father in many years. The daughter had only just spoken to the deceased, after many years of not talking to him. I understand that they feel a loss, but it needs to be tempered with the fact that an estrangement existed, at that time. Equally I do not need victim impact statements to measure the loss that the community feels…

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 Papadopoulos

Details

AGLC: R v Papadopoulos [2013] VSC 134
Case: [2013] VSC 134
Decision Date: 9 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Papadopoulos involved the defendant, aged 67 at the time of sentencing, who had a prior conviction for voluntary homicide in Greece in 1992. The current dispute arose from an altercation with an 82-year-old Greek male, with whom the defendant shared a house. The conflict originated from a disagreement over a garden bed, escalating to the defendant's use of a knife, which led to the death of the deceased. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the principles of specific and general deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the defendant's prior conviction for voluntary homicide, his age, and the circumstances of the offence. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, alongside the importance of specific and general deterrence in this case. The court needed to weigh the defendant's history of violence against his age and the particular context of the incident.

The court, after considering all the factors, determined that the appropriate sentence was 11 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years. The judge emphasised the importance of both specific and general deterrence, noting the defendant's prior history of violence and the circumstances of the current offence. The sentence aimed to reflect the gravity of the crime while also considering the defendant's age and the need to deter both the defendant and the broader community from similar conduct in the future.

Orders