R v Sidaros (No 5) - [2020] ACTSC 354

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sidaros (No 5)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 354
Hearing Dates:	30 November, 1 – 4, 7 – 10 December 2020
Decision Date:	23 December 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [654]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Attempted murder – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – attempted arson with intent to endanger life – aggravated burglary – arson – act endangering life – dishonestly ride in motor vehicle without consent – accused is a member of the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang – complainant is a former member – issue of identity of the offender – strong circumstantial case – not guilty of attempted murder – guilty on all other counts
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 12, 19, 27(3)(d), 117 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 45A, 311, 312, 318(2), 404 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 136, 165(1)(e) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 49(5), 68 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 181(1)(b), Dictionary Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 189 Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Axel Sidaros (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown)
M Thangaraj SC and S Pararajasingham (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 312 of 2018 SCC 313 of 2018
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The accused, Axel Sidaros, faces seven counts on an indictment dated 7 August 2020. The charges arise out of an incident that occurred on 28 June 2018 when four persons entered a residential property where they committed acts of arson and firearms were discharged. The offences the accused is alleged to have committed are as follows:

(a) count 1: attempted murder of Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(b) count 2: intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act;
(c) count 3: attempted arson with intent to endanger life contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act and s 44 of the Criminal Code;
(d) count 4: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code;
(e) count 5: arson contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code;
(f) count 6: act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act; and
(g) count 7: dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code.
2. Counts 1 to 6 are alleged to be offences of joint commission under s 45A of the Criminal Code.
3. The accused has also been charged with a transfer charge of failing to properly store ammunition contrary to s 181(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). He entered a plea of guilty to this charge after judgment was reserved.

Crown case

4. On 28 June…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Sidaros (No 5) [2020] ACTSC 354
Case: [2020] ACTSC 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Axel Sidaros, a member of the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang, was charged with multiple offences arising from an incident on 28 June 2018 at the residence of Peter Zdravkovic, a former member of the Comanchero gang. The offences included attempted murder, intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, aggravated burglary, arson, act endangering life, and dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent. The court was required to decide whether the accused was the offender identified as "offender 2" in the CCTV footage of the incident and whether he was guilty of the charged offences.

The court found that the accused was the offender identified as "offender 2" based on the strong circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown. The court found that the accused was using his own shotgun during the incident, which was consistent with his post-offence conduct and the evidence of the accused's admissions to a prison informer, although the court did not place any weight on the latter evidence. The court found the accused guilty of all charges except for the attempted murder charge, as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to commit murder.

The court found the accused guilty of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, as there was an agreement between the intruders to inflict really serious injury upon Mr Zdravkovic if the opportunity presented itself during the intrusion. The court found the accused guilty of attempted arson with intent to endanger life, as there was an agreement between the intruders to set fire to the house with the intention to harm the lives of the occupants. The court found the accused guilty of aggravated burglary, as there was an agreement between the intruders to enter the premises without the permission of the occupier and with the intention of committing arson. The court found the accused guilty of arson, as there was an agreement between the intruders to commit arson of the vehicles. The court found the accused guilty of act endangering life, as there was an agreement that one or more of the two weapon-carrying offenders would discharge their firearms into the house in a manner that would cause persons to reasonably apprehend for their safety. The court found the accused guilty of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent, as the accused rode in the stolen vehicle with the knowledge that it was stolen.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was not guilty of count 1 (attempted murder), but guilty of counts 2 to 7 (intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, aggravated burglary, arson, act endangering life, and dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent). The accused also pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to properly store ammunition.

Orders