R v Slifkas - [2019] ACTSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Slifkas
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 40
Hearing Dates:	13 November 2018 and 4 February 2019
DecisionDates:	13 November 2018 and 4 February 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [34] and [38]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated robbery in company – offender involved in opportunistic robbery of person walking home at night – plea of guilty to theft of car – obtaining property by deception – limited criminal history – some prospects of rehabilitation – sentence of imprisonment to be served by intensive correction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT), s 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 11(3), 78 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 308, 310(b), 326
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Victor Slifkas (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K McCann (Crown) D Lee (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Gabbedy Milson Lee (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 25 of 2018 SCC 26 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

After a trial before a jury the offender was convicted of aggravated robbery. The robbery was aggravated by reason of it being in company. The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery in company by joint commission via s 45A, contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), is 25 years imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both.

Immediately prior to the hearing before the jury, the offender pleaded guilty to dishonestly appropriating property, namely a Toyota Camry motor vehicle, from a named person with the intention of permanently depriving him of the property. The victim of this offence was different to the victim of the aggravated robbery offence. The maximum penalty for theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code is 10 years, 1000 penalty units or both.

The offender also pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining property by deception. He did so in the Magistrates Court and was committed to this Court for sentence. The charge related to the sale of the mobile phone stolen during the aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for an offence against s 326 of the Criminal Code is 10 years, 1000 penalty units or both.

Facts

Mr Slifkas borrowed a car from a person who I will refer to as UQ on 7 November 2014. It was due to be returned to UQ on 9 November 2014. On 9 November 2014, Mr Slifkas contacted UQ and asked if he could borrow the car for a further day until 10 November 2014. An arrangement was made to return the car at 3pm on Monday, 10 November 2014.

At about 12:10am on Monday, 10 November 2014, Mr Slifkas was a passenger in the car previously borrowed from UQ. As the car drove along the cul-de-sac of Riley Place in Chifley, the occupants of the vehicle saw a person who I will refer to as SS walking along with a mobile phone in his hand. The mobile phone was a Nokia Lumia smart phone.…

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 Slifkas

Details

AGLC: R v Slifkas [2019] ACTSC 40
Case: [2019] ACTSC 40
Decision Date: 13 November 2018 and 4 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slifkas involved the defendant, Slifkas, who was charged with aggravated robbery in company, involving the opportunistic robbery of a person walking home at night. Slifkas pleaded guilty to the theft of a car and obtaining property by deception. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the nature of the crime, Slifkas’s limited criminal history, and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the appropriate sentence for aggravated robbery committed in company and the consideration of Slifkas's criminal history and prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to balance the seriousness of the crime with Slifkas's potential for rehabilitation. It had to determine a sentence that would serve both as a punishment and a means of rehabilitation, given the defendant's limited prior criminal record.

The court noted the seriousness of the crime, acknowledging the vulnerability of the victim and the opportunistic nature of the robbery. However, it also considered Slifkas's limited criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation. The court decided that an intensive correction order, which combines imprisonment with structured rehabilitation programs, was appropriate. This approach aimed to address the offender’s behaviour while offering a pathway to rehabilitation. The court sentenced Slifkas to a term of imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction, reflecting a balance between punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders were that Slifkas was to serve a sentence of imprisonment by way of an intensive correction order. This decision was based on the court's consideration of the crime's severity, Slifkas's criminal history, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34] and [38]

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.