R v Patniyot - [2000] VSCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 190 of 1999
No. 209 of 1999

THE QUEEN

DESPINA PATNIYOT and
EVANGELOS DAILAKIS

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and CALLAWAY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	GEELONG
DATES OF HEARING:	3 and 4 April 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 April 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 55

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Obtaining property by deception – Insurance fraud – Perjury – Prior convictions – Remorse – General deterrence – Manifest excess.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. J.D. McArdle, Q.C.

P. C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Applicant
Patniyot

For the Applicant
Dailakis

Mr. D. Grace, Q.C.

Mr. D.G. Just

Office of David Grace, Q.C.

Brian T.D. Cash

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Charles, J.A. to give the first judgment in this application.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant Dailakis, who was born on 10 September 1962, and the applicant Patniyot, who was born on 7 April 1970, were presented, together with a co-accused, Nick Magnisalis, on 14 July 1999 in the County Court at Melbourne on three separate presentments.

Dailakis pleaded guilty to nine counts of obtaining property by deception (counts 1 to 8 and 10), three counts of attempting to obtain property by deception, (counts 9, 11 and 12) and two counts of perjury (counts 13 and 14) and guilty to a summary offence of unlawful possession of a motor car.

Patniyot pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining property by deception (counts 1 to 3) and two counts of perjury (counts 4 and 5). Dailakis admitted 28 prior convictions arising from 13 court appearances, whereas Patniyot had no prior convictions.

A plea in mitigation was heard on 14 and 15 July during which evidence was given for Dailakis by a consultant forensic psychologist, Timothy Watson-Munro, and Nazario Mancini. In relation to Patniyot, Detective Senior Constable Joseph McGill of the Stolen Motor Vehicle squad gave sworn evidence on her behalf, as also did her husband, George Kostis. A substantial volume of documentation was tendered during the plea, including a victim impact statement by John Findlay, a victim in relation to the perjury charges, and various charts, summaries and transcripts concerning the police investigation of the charges against all three accused. Character references were also tendered in relation to both applicants.

On 3 September the judge also heard applications for compensation made on behalf of a number of insurance companies and ordered that Dailakis pay compensation as follows: (1) $114,881.18 to RACV Insurance Company, (2) $53,951.01 to FAI Insurance Company, (3) $109,701.15 to GIO Insurance Company, (4) $25,596.26 to Hallmark General Insurance Limited, (5) $5,247 to AAMI Insurance Limited.

On 3 September 1999, the judge sentenced Dailakis on count 1 to three and a half years' imprisonment, on each of counts 2, 7, 9 and 10 to two years' imprisonment, on each of counts 3 and 4 to four years' imprisonment, on count 5 to two and a half years' imprisonment, on count 6 to two…

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 Patniyot

Details

AGLC: R v Patniyot and Dailakis [2000] VSCA 55
Case: [2000] VSCA 55
Decision Date: 4 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Patniyot involved the defendant who was convicted for obtaining property by deception through insurance fraud and subsequently perjuring himself during the trial. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing, with the defendant facing multiple prior convictions. The primary focus of the court was to determine an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for general deterrence with the principles of proportionality and individual justice. The court had to consider the defendant's lack of remorse, his criminal history, and the impact of his actions on the insurance system.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the severity of the crimes committed, the defendant's culpability, and the appropriate weight to give to his prior criminal record. The court was tasked with ensuring that the sentence would adequately reflect the gravity of the offenses while also considering mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of genuine remorse. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the proposed sentence constituted a manifest excess, meaning it was excessively harsh or lenient given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving insurance fraud. The court noted the defendant's extensive criminal history and his failure to express meaningful remorse. Despite acknowledging the need to consider the individual circumstances of the defendant, the court ultimately decided that a substantial custodial sentence was necessary to effectively deter similar conduct in the future. The court concluded that the proposed sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor lenient, and thus appropriate in the circumstances. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific parole conditions.

Orders