R v Papathanasiou - [2016] VSC 722

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0095

Between:

THE QUEEN
and
CHRISTOS PAPATHANASIOU	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25 October & 2 December 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Papathanasiou
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 722

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury, aggravated burglary and theft – Accused, without warning, stabbed former relative repeatedly to face, head and limbs, all but severing her nose – Victim suffers debilitating psychological and physical scarring – Accused ran to another house, entered while persons present and stole car keys and then car – Objectively very grave assault but very low moral culpability because of accused’s psychotic state – Accused’s behaviour caused by psychosis, precipitated by schizophrenia – Corresponding reduction in weight to general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation and just punishment – Pleas of guilty despite prosecution preparedness to consent to verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Remorse – Limited criminal history – Impact of schizophrenia on hardship of imprisonment – Illness now controlled by antipsychotic medication – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years – But for pleas of guilty, total effective sentence of ten years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years – But for mental illness and pleas of guilty, total effective sentence in order of 13 or 14 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Brown	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Marsh (25 October 2016) Ms D Dempsey (2 December 2016)	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

Early on the morning of 14 December 2015, Christos Papathanasiou visited his cousin’s ex-wife Alexia Ioannou at her home. She made him a coffee. After smoking a cigarette and drinking his coffee on the porch, Mr Papathanasiou went to the kitchen and took up a large knife. He then went to the lounge room with the knife raised in his hand and asked Ms Ioannou, “Why would you do that to me?” Ms Ioannou initially thought he was joking but then realized he was about to attack her. She screamed but was cornered. Mr Papathanasiou stabbed her in the face and head. She fell to the ground as he continued to stab her. She thought she was going to die. Somehow, Ms Ioannou managed to get up and flee towards the bedroom where her two guests were staying. Mr Papathanasiou continued to stab her from behind as she ran. Her guests awoke and saw Ms Ioannou in the hallway with Mr Papathanasiou behind her holding a knife. One of the guests screamed at him to stop and he ran out the front door.

Mr Papathanasiou then ran to an unrelated address in Berwick, about two kilometres away. There, he entered the house and said…

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 Papathanasiou

Details

AGLC: R v Papathanasiou [2016] VSC 722
Case: [2016] VSC 722
Decision Date: 2 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Papathanasiou involved the sentencing of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to charges of intentionally causing serious injury, aggravated burglary, and theft. The victim, a former relative, was brutally stabbed by the accused without warning, resulting in severe physical and psychological injuries. Following the assault, the accused committed an aggravated burglary, stealing car keys and subsequently the car. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence considering the accused's psychotic state, the severity of the assault, and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The court had to balance the gravity of the crimes with the accused's low moral culpability due to his schizophrenia. The impact of the accused's mental illness, his remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation also played a crucial role in the sentencing.

The court acknowledged the objectively very grave nature of the assault but recognised the accused’s very low moral culpability due to his psychotic state, which was precipitated by schizophrenia. This led to a reduction in the weight given to general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation, and just punishment. Despite the prosecution's willingness to accept a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, the accused pleaded guilty. The court also considered the accused’s limited criminal history, the hardship his schizophrenia would impose during imprisonment, and the good prospects for rehabilitation, given his condition was now controlled by antipsychotic medication. The court sentenced the accused to a total effective term of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. This sentence reflected the pleas of guilty, the accused’s mental illness, and the severity of the crimes. Without the pleas of guilty, the sentence would have been ten years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. Absent the mental illness and pleas of guilty, the sentence would likely have been in the order of 13 or 14 years’ imprisonment.

Orders