Legal Research
Cases
R v Siozios

R v Siozios

Case [2004] SASC 299 24 September 2004

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v SIOZIOS
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice White)
24 September 2004
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE
AGGRAVATED SERIOUS CRIMINAL TRESPASS - RAPE
The respondent was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years following his plea of guilty in the District Court to one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and two counts of rape - the respondent, a 33 years old man, entered a unit within a group of aged care units, and violently attacked the victim, an 84 years old woman who lived there alone, pulling off her clothes and proceeding to commit vaginal and anal digital rape - the victim resisted and struggled throughout, suffered physical injuries and was left with lasting effects on her peace of mind and well-being - at the time of the offending, the respondent was on a bond pursuant to which he had been released three months earlier on a charge of indecent behaviour - on an application for leave to appeal by the DPP, held (by a majority) that the sentence under appeal failed to maintain an adequate sentencing standard for such offences - leave granted - appeal allowed - sentence increased to 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 48 and s 170(2)(c), referred to.
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293; R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362; Elliott v The Queen (2001) 121 A Crim R 254; R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168; R v Delphin (2001) 79 SASR 429; R v Barraclough (1988) 144 LSJS 183; Heuston v The Queen (1993) 171 LSJS 479, considered.

R v SIOZIOS
[2004] SASC 299
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Perry and White JJ

DOYLE CJ. I agree with the orders proposed by Perry J and with his reasons. There is nothing that I wish to add.
PERRY J. I have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of White J.
He has set out the circumstances of the respondent’s offending, and identified the other matters relevant to the penalty imposed.
While it was appropriate for the sentencing court to exercise its powers pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 to impose a single sentence, it is nonetheless important to recognise that the respondent was being sentenced for two serious offences. The penalty needed to reflect an adequate punishment for both offences.
For the reasons which I…

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 Siozios

Details

AGLC: R v Siozios [2004] SASC 299
Case: [2004] SASC 299
Decision Date: 24 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Siozios was brought before the court by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), seeking leave to appeal the sentence imposed on the respondent for his crimes. The respondent, aged 33, had pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and two counts of rape. The crimes involved the violent attack on an 84-year-old woman residing alone in an aged care unit, where he forcibly removed her clothing and committed both vaginal and anal digital rape. The victim valiantly resisted the attack, sustaining physical injuries and enduring long-term impacts on her mental health and overall well-being. At the time of the offenses, the respondent was on a bond after being released on a charge of indecent behaviour. The central legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence adequately reflected the gravity of the offenses and maintained an appropriate sentencing standard.

The court considered the severity of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victim, and the respondent’s prior criminal history. It was established that the District Court's sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years did not sufficiently address the seriousness of the offenses. The majority of the court found that the sentence failed to uphold an adequate sentencing benchmark for such heinous crimes, thereby warranting an increase in the sentence. The court acknowledged the substantial impact on the victim and the necessity of deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing process. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence to 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

In light of the findings, the court issued a revised sentence, reflecting a more appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. The increased sentence was intended to serve as a stronger deterrent and to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The respondent's new sentence of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months was deemed necessary to appropriately reflect the severity of the offenses and to ensure that the sentencing standards were met.

Orders