Legal Research
Cases
R v Sidaros (No 6)

R v Sidaros (No 6)

Case [2021] ACTSC 24 16 February 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sidaros (No 6)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 24
Hearing Date:	15 February 2021
Decision Date:	16 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [65]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – attempted arson with intent to endanger life – aggravated burglary – arson – offences in the mid range of objective seriousness – act endangering life – dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent – above mid range of objective seriousness – failing to properly store ammunition – low end of objective seriousness – found guilty in judge alone trial – offending occurred in the context of outlaw motorcycle gang activities – medium risk of reoffending – ongoing association with an outlaw motorcycle gang – no acceptance of responsibility or remorse – family support – young offender – reparation order – sentences of imprisonment imposed
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – principles of sentencing following a retrial – no material difference in facts found – original sentences not manifestly inadequate or affected by specific error – term of original sentences not exceeded
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 19, 117(1), 27(3)(d) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 19 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 45A, 312, 318(2), 404(1) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 181(1)(b)
Cases Cited:	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
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Axel Sidaros (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown)
M Thangaraj SC and S Pararajasingham (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 312 of 2018 SCC 313 of 2018
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. On 23 December 2020 following a nine-day judge alone trial, I found the offender, Axel Sidaros, guilty of the following six offences:

(a) count 2: intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT);
(b) count 3: attempted arson with intent to endanger life contrary to s 117(1) of the Crimes Act and s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(c) count 4: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code;
(d) count 5: arson contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code;
(e) count 6: act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act; and
(f) count 7: dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code.
2. All counts, with the exception of count 7, are offences of joint commission under s 45A of the Criminal Code.

The maximum penalty for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm is 20 years’
imprisonment. The…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24
Case: [2021] ACTSC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sidaros (No 6) was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, presided over by Mossop J. The defendant, Axel Sidaros, was found guilty of multiple serious offences, including intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, aggravated burglary, arson, an act endangering life, and dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent. These offences were committed within the context of the activities of an outlaw motorcycle gang. The defendant was sentenced following a retrial, after his previous convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the defendant’s convictions, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the objective and subjective circumstances of the case.

The court assessed the objective seriousness of each offence, noting that they were all part of a coordinated attack motivated by gang-related retribution. The attempted murder charge, which was not sustained in the retrial, had previously influenced the sentencing considerations. Given the similarities in facts and the principle that an offender should not be worse off after a successful appeal, the court decided that the previous sentences should not be exceeded. The court did, however, adjust the sentences to reflect the absence of the attempted murder charge and to address the issue of totality through concurrency. The defendant was also convicted and sentenced for a transfer charge of failing to properly store ammunition. The court imposed a reparation order for the offence of arson, reflecting the harm caused to the victim. The final sentences resulted in a head sentence of nine years and nine months, with a non-parole period of five years and six months.

Orders