Legal Research
Cases
R v Sidaros (No 4)

R v Sidaros (No 4)

Case [2020] ACTSC 87 15 April 2020

Jurisdiction

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Joint criminal enterprise

Risk of recidivism

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sidaros (No 4)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 87
Hearing Date:	15 April 2020
DecisionDate:	15 April 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Offender sentenced to total of 14 years’ imprisonment with an eight-year nonparole period. Reparation order for $20,000. See [108]–[114].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Attempted murder – Intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – Act endangering life – Arson – Aggravated burglary – Discharge loaded firearm – Dishonestly ride in motor vehicle – Failure to properly store ammunition – Joint criminal enterprise – Guilty verdicts – Outlaw motorcycle gang – Risk of recidivism – General and personal deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 19, 27(3)(d), 117 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 19, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 312, 318(2), 404 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 181(1)(b)
Cases Cited:	Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 R v Forster-Jones (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 286 R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v O’Neill [1996] 2 Qd R 326 R v Christopher Pattman; R v Stephen Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331 R v Rappel [2017] ACTSC 38 R v Sharp [2019] ACTSC 175 R v Vickerstaff (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 343 R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Axel Sidaros (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Drumgold SC (Crown) K Ginges with S Pararajasingham (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 312 of 2018 SCC 313 of 2018

Murrell CJ

Introduction

On 5 December 2019, a jury found that, on 28 June 2018, the offender had committed the following offences:

(a)Attempting to murder the complainant, contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (Count 1). This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
(b)Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on the complainant, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act (Count 2). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Attempting to destroy or damage 20 Carter Crescent, Callwell, by means of fire or explosive, with intent to endanger the life of another person, contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act, by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code (Count 3). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
(d)Entering or remaining on 20 Carter Crescent, Callwell as a trespasser with intent to commit arson in the company of unknown persons and having an offensive weapon with him, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code (Count 4). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units, 20 years’ imprisonment, or…

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 Sidaros (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87
Case: [2020] ACTSC 87
Decision Date: 15 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Vasileios Sidaros, brought an appeal against his convictions and sentences in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The convictions stemmed from a series of violent incidents linked to his involvement in an outlaw motorcycle gang. The appeal focused on the sentences imposed for various charges, including attempted murder, aggravated burglary, arson, discharging a firearm, and riding a motor vehicle dishonestly. The Supreme Court of Victoria assessed the sentences and considered the appellant's risk of recidivism and the need for general and personal deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of the severity and nature of the crimes committed. The court had to balance the need to protect the community, deter the appellant from reoffending, and consider the principles of proportionality and justice in sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentences were excessive and that the trial judge had not adequately considered mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The prosecution maintained that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct.

The court considered the appellant's criminal history, the nature of the offences, and the circumstances in which they were committed. The court found that the sentences were proportionate to the crimes and necessary to achieve the objectives of general and personal deterrence. The appellant's involvement in a violent criminal enterprise, coupled with the significant harm caused to victims and the community, justified a severe sentence. The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the sentences were excessive and noted that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors. The appeal against the sentences was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed the sentences imposed on the appellant. Vasileios Sidaros was sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison with an eight-year nonparole period. Additionally, a reparation order of $20,000 was imposed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. The appeal did not alter the convictions or the sentences, and the appellant remains subject to the original terms of his imprisonment and reparation order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender sentenced to total of 14 years’ imprisonment with an eight-year nonparole period. Reparation order for $20,000. See [108]–[114].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87

Most Recent Citation

R v DQ [2020] ACTSC 352

Cases citing this decision · 5 of 5 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Nicholls (a pseudonym)
[2025] ACTSC 194

…18] ACTSC 40 R v James (1981) 27 SASR 348 R v Ledger [2021] ACTSC 103 R v Longmore [2018] ACTSC 298 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87 R v Stott [2017] ACTSC 248 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Wright [2018] ACTSC 58 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 Small (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 25 Smith v…
R v Banks
[2022] ACTSC 202 Para 1

…Here the quantification of loss, being $2000, is agreed and forms part of the statement of facts. In R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87, Murrell CJ imposed a reparation order that approximately reflected apportionment as a percentage the number of offenders involved.…
R v Carberry
[2022] ACTSC 208 Para 1

…ticipant is to be determined by the level of each participant's actions. That is, contrary to the Crown's submission, correct: see R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87 at [32]. Thus, in KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32 at [19]–[20], the Court said, after reviewing the authorities:…
R v Sidaros (No 6)
[2021] ACTSC 24

…Giotas v R [2008] NSWCCA 287 R H McL v The Queen [2000] HCA 46; 203 CLR 452 R v Hannes [2002] NSWSC 1182; 173 FLR 1 R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87 Tarrant v R [2007] NSWCCA 124; 171 A Crim R 425…
R v DQ
[2020] ACTSC 352

…R v Ophel [2019] ACTSC 325 R v Playford [2017] QSC 337 R v Quail [2013] VSC 190 R v Rapovski [2015] VSC 359 R v RG [2006] NSWSC 21 R v Sidaros (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 87 The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 The Queen v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497 Western Australia v Radovic [2020] WASCA 46; 282 A Crim R 223…

View all 5 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

R v Vickerstaff (No 2)
[2019] ACTSC 343 Para 1

…In R v Vickerstaff (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 343, the offender received a sentence of nine years and three months’ imprisonment for manslaughter (reduced from 10 years’ imprisonment) with a nonparole period of six years and six months’ imprisonment. He was the principal of three joint offenders who had attended the decea…
R v Forster-Jones (No 2)
[2019] ACTSC 286 Para 1

…In R v Forster-Jones (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 286, the offender had pleaded guilty to all charges except murder: aggravated burglary, three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding, inflicting actual bodily harm, and aggravated robbery. On day two of the murder trial, he pleaded guilty. The offences oc…
R v Sharp
[2019] ACTSC 175 Para 1

…In R v Sharp [2019] ACTSC 175, the offender had pleaded guilty at a criminal case conference to intentionally and unlawfully discharging a loaded firearm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for their safety, causing damage to property (two cars and one house), and unauthorised possession of a fire…
R v Hodge
[2019] ACTSC 15 Para 1

…sness of an arson offence were set out in R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 at [34] and have been referred to in numerous other cases, including R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15.…
R v Pattman
[2017] ACTSC 331 Para 1

…In R v Christopher Pattman; R v Stephen Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331 ( Pattman ), the co-offenders were father and son who had been members of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang from 2010 to 2014. When they left, tensions emerged between the co-offenders and the ACT State President of the Rebels.…
R v Rappel
[2017] ACTSC 38 Para 1

…In R v Rappel [2017] ACTSC 38, the offender had pleaded guilty to the murder of his former partner, contravention of a protection order, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm. He had come to the deceased’s house in contravention of a domestic violence order and kil…
Filippou v The Queen
[2015] HCA 29 Para 1

…nd reasonable doubt, but may be taken into account in the offender’s favour if it is proven on the balance of probabilities: Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 at [64], [66].…
R v Wrigley
[2015] ACTSC 114 Para 1

…The considerations relevant to assessing the objective seriousness of an arson offence were set out in R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 at [34] and have been referred to in numerous other cases, including R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15.…
R v Wright
[2009] NSWCCA 3 Para 1

…ed on joint criminal enterprise, it is necessary to consider his particular conduct in order to identify the level of his culpability: R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3 at [28]–[29].…
Cheung v The Queen
[2001] HCA 67 Para 1

…The facts adopted by a sentencing judge must be consistent with the jury’s verdicts: Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 at [14] (referring to R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 377-378), [169]. A fact may not be taken into account against an offender unless it has been established beyond reasonable doubt…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
117, 12, 19, 27(3)(d) 5 mentions
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
19, 33, 7 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
181(1)(b) 2 mentions (from Para 1)