R v Sirillas - [2006] VSCA 234

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 377 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
CHRISTOS SIRILLAS

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, and NEAVE, JJ.A. and KING, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 October 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 November 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 234

---

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – One count of armed robbery, one count of obtaining property by deception – Consciousness of guilt - Whether applicant’s story of coming into possession of stolen property capable of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt – Whether “bootstraps” reasoning – whether identification evidence safe – No error in directions to the jury - Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. R. Johns	Slades & Parsons
For the Respondent	Mr G. M. Horgan S.C.	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

VINCENT, J.A.:

I agree that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be refused and I do so for the reasons advanced by Neave JA in her judgment.

NEAVE, J.A.:

Background

Mr Sirillas has made an application to appeal against his conviction for one count of armed robbery arising from the hold-up of a service station in Craigieburn, at approximately 5.15 am on 23 February 2003.

The only person present in the service station when the armed robbery occurred was a young female console operator, Ms Machovic. She testified that she saw the person who later held her up walking past the window of the service station. When he entered the service station he attempted to conceal his identity, by covering half his face with a skivvy, and wearing dark glasses and a beanie. The person pointed a handgun at her, and demanded money. She put the money together with phone cards in a bag. She also complied with a demand to give him her mobile phone.

At 6.06 am, approximately 45 minutes after the robbery, the phone that had been taken from the victim was used to make a phone call on a pre-paid mobile service that was connected to the applicant. The victim assisted the police to produce a photofit of the robber and later identified the applicant from a photo board containing a number of photos.

In May 2006 a search warrant was executed at the applicant’s premises. A pawn ticket was located, which led to the recovery of the mobile phone. Pawning the mobile phone for $60 formed the basis of count two, obtaining property by deception to which the applicant pleaded guilty. The applicant maintained his innocence in respect of the armed robbery.

At trial, the applicant gave evidence that he had purchased heroin in the car

park at the Craigieburn Shopping Centre, which was a short distance from the service station at which the robbery occurred. After buying the heroin he had injected himself and was sitting in the car with his friend Mr Cardamone, who had driven him there. The car had its interior light on. The car was approached by two people he…

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 Sirillas

Details

AGLC: R v Sirillas [2006] VSCA 234
Case: [2006] VSCA 234
Decision Date: 2 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sirillas, was convicted of armed robbery and obtaining property by deception and appealed against his conviction. The appeal was heard by the court of criminal appeal in Australia. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the appellant's story of coming into possession of the stolen property could demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. The appellant argued that this direction amounted to a "bootstraps" argument, which is impermissible in criminal cases.

The court of criminal appeal found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was not erroneous. The court held that the appellant's story of coming into possession of the stolen property was relevant to the issue of consciousness of guilt, and that the jury was entitled to consider this evidence in determining whether the appellant was guilty of the offences. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the direction amounted to a "bootstraps" argument, holding that the direction was based on legitimate inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. The court also found that the identification evidence was safe, and that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury, and that the identification evidence was safe. The court also found that the appellant's argument that the direction amounted to a "bootstraps" argument was without merit. The appellant's convictions for armed robbery and obtaining property by deception were therefore upheld.

Orders