R v Soteriou - [2011] VSC 623

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. SCR 2011 0040

THE QUEEN

VICKY SOTERIOU

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	Trial: 12-16, 19-23, 26-30 September, 3-7 October 2011 Plea: 14 November 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 November 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Soteriou
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 623

---

Catchwords: Attempted murder of spouse – Guilty by jury verdict – Victim was stabbed by wife’s lover in planned attack – Prisoner provided weapon, nominated location and timing of attack - Gross betrayal of trust – Confession to Police – No prior convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – TES: 12 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 9 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P A Dunn QC with Mr M McGrath	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler

HER HONOUR:

Vicky Soteriou, you have been found guilty by jury verdict of the attempted murder of your husband Chris Soteriou. No prior convictions are alleged against you.

As at January 2010, you and Chris Soteriou had been married for 18 years. You had three children together and your husband regarded the marriage as a happy one. Unbeknown to him, you were having an affair with Ari Dimitrakis. He had been your boyfriend for a short period of time in your single days and you met him again by chance when you were out with your girlfriends celebrating your 40^th birthday. You spoke with him again later on that night and you told each other of your respective marriages. Some time after that meeting, the relationship was rekindled, although it appeared it did not become physically intimate until some nine months or so before 2 January 2010. By all accounts, it appears that you were obsessed with each other and it was a passionate and compelling affair.

By 2 January, which was your husband’s 44^th birthday, you and Ari had agreed to kill him. On that date, at about 4pm, you told your husband that you were taking him out for a surprise birthday dinner. You and your three children gave Mr Soteriou a birthday card in which you expressed very loving sentiments and you gave him a shirt which you asked him to wear.

You drove in your husband’s car to the restaurant in Fitzroy, en route stopping to purchase wine for the festivities. It was unusual for you to drive that car, and you did not tell your husband where you were going. You parked the car in Rose Street, Fitzroy, which runs off Brunswick Street where the restaurant was located. You arrived at the restaurant at around 9.00pm and were joined by five friends. It was a happy and convivial night. You appeared to your friends to be a happy couple. There was nothing untoward about your demeanour or your conduct, except for the fact that you were noted to be…

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 Soteriou

Details

AGLC: R v Soteriou [2011] VSC 623
Case: [2011] VSC 623
Decision Date: 28 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Soteriou, the respondent was found guilty by a jury for his involvement in the attempted murder of his spouse. The crime was meticulously planned and executed by the victim’s lover, who stabbed the spouse multiple times. Soteriou played a significant role in orchestrating the attack by providing the weapon, selecting the location, and setting the timing of the assault. The court recognised the profound breach of trust involved in the respondent’s actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Soteriou, given his significant contribution to the planning and execution of the crime despite not being the one to carry out the stabbing. The court also had to consider mitigating factors, including Soteriou’s lack of prior criminal history and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to balance the severity of the crime with these mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the nature of the crime and the gross betrayal of trust warranted a substantial sentence. However, it also took into account Soteriou’s confession to the police, his otherwise clean criminal record, and his potential for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a total effective sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years, was appropriate. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the offence and the respondent’s potential for future rehabilitation.

Orders