R v Spaliaras - [2017] VSC 33

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0153
S CR 2015 0151
S CR 2015 0152

THE QUEEN

CONSTANTINOS GEORGE SPALIARAS

MATTHEW DAVID BRENNAN

EDWARD LIONEL HILL

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23–27, 30–31 May, 1–3, 6–10, 14, 16–17 June, 30 November 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 February 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Spaliaras & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 33

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Sentence following trial – The three substance affected offenders (S, B and H), acting in concert, assaulted deceased over a minor drug debt, intending to inflict really serious injury – No intention to kill – S and B subsequently dismembered the body and all three disposed of the body parts – Only some body parts recovered – Mid-range example of offence of murder – R v Terdputham & Seehaverachart [2015] VSC 740 – R v Parry [2016] VSC 685 – Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Gavin Silbert QC Ms Amanda Fox SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Constantinos George Spaliaras	Mr John Saunders	Valos Black & Associates
For the Accused Matthew David Brennan	Mr Colin Mandy	Slades & Parsons
For the Accused Edward Lionel Hill	Mr Marcus Dempsey	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Constantinos Spaliaras, Matthew Brennan and Edward Hill, a jury found each of you guilty of murdering Brendan Bernard, who was 32 years of age at the time of his death. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The facts

On 26 January 2015 — Australia Day — a young woman named Jacinta Kennett, who at that time was in relationship with you, Mr Spaliaras, sold five morphine tablets on credit to Mr Bernard. The price was $100.

The next day, Ms Kennett called Mr Bernard several times seeking payment. According to Ms Kennett, you, Mr Spaliaras, also spoke to Mr Bernard and dropped the price to $60.

Later that day — the 27^th — you, Mr Spaliaras, and Ms Kennett, visited Mr Hill at his flat in O’Shanassy St, North Melbourne. After a while, the three of you went downstairs to Mr Brennan’s flat, looking for Mr Bernard, who was staying with Mr Brennan temporarily. Mr Brennan was home but Mr Bernard wasn’t. You, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, went into Mr Bernard’s room. Ms Kennett said the two of you began packing up Mr Bernard’s possessions.

Mr Bernard came home. According to Ms Kennett, the three of you began yelling at Mr Bernard. It was chaotic. You were all substance affected by drugs and/or alcohol. Mr Spaliaras, you started fighting with Mr Bernard, punching him and then, you, Mr Brennan and Mr Hill, joined in the assault. Mr Spaliaras, you put Mr Bernard in a sleeper hold until he passed out.

The three of you then went into Mr Bernard’s room and talked. Ms Kennett remained in…

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 Spaliaras

Details

AGLC: R v Spaliaras [2017] VSC 33
Case: [2017] VSC 33
Decision Date: 3 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spaliaras involved the appellant, one of three individuals, who was convicted of the murder of an individual over a minor drug debt. The three individuals, Spaliaras (S), Bell (B) and an unnamed individual (H), acted in concert to assault the deceased, with the intention to inflict really serious injury. The deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained during the assault. Spaliaras and Bell subsequently dismembered the body and disposed of the body parts, only some of which were recovered. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Spaliaras, considering the relevant legal principles and authorities.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate range of sentence for the offence of murder, the relevance of the mid-range example in R v Terdputham & Seehaverachart and R v Parry, and the application of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also had to consider the mitigating and aggravating factors in the case, including the role of the offender in the offence, the impact on the victim and their family, and the offender's background and character.

The court found that the offence was a mid-range example of the offence of murder, and that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was 20 years imprisonment. The court noted that the offender had played a significant role in the offence, including participating in the assault and dismemberment of the body. However, the court also noted that the offender had not intended to kill the victim, and that there were some mitigating factors in the case, including the offender's young age and the influence of substance abuse. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for Spaliaras was 18 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years.

The final orders of the court were that Spaliaras be sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. The court also ordered that Spaliaras be credited with 2,613 days for time spent on remand. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the mitigating factors in the case. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing, and the need to balance the interests of the offender, the victim and the community.

Orders