R v Triantaffillopoulas; ex parte - [1999] QCA 336

99.336

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA DERRINGTON J MACKENZIE J

CA No 188 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

JOHN PERRY TRIANTAFILLOPOULAS	Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 19/08/99
JUDGMENT AND BENCH WARRANT

1 190899 T19/RAG23 M/T COA199/99 DERRINGTON J: This is an appeal by the Attorney against the

sentence imposed upon the respondent, who was 27 years of
age when, on 23 July 1998, he committed perjury. The
sentence was one of 12 months imprisonment served by way of
an intensive correction order.

The circumstances of the perjury are slightly complex. The respondent was sentenced on 6 May 1998 in respect of offences of breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent, stealing with actual violence, and using personal violence whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. That weapon was a firearm. The offence essentially consisted of a home invasion involving robbery in respect of a very substantial amount of money. The respondent was not immediately apprehended and that accounts for the delay in the sentence of him of something like three years after the commission of the offence.

At his sentencing his learned counsel indicated to the Court
that the respondent here had been persuaded to commit the
offence by the principal culprit, one Kozionas, and that the
respondent had provided the police with a statement signed
by him, together with a statement, again signed by him, of
his willingness to give evidence against Kozionas. Although
His Honour indicated that he was not applying section 13A of
the Act, His Honour, surprisingly, imposed a sentence of an
intensive correction order for 12 months on that occasion.
190899 T19/RAG23 M/T COA199/99
There were a few other matters of a minor nature in that
sentence, but it is difficult to reconcile it with a
reasonable sentence other than that considerable weight must
have been given to his willingness to give evidence against
Kozionas. The other matters might be mentioned, namely that
the respondent had had a difficult childhood with a certain
amount of trauma, that there were some favourable
references, and that a report had been provided by a
psychologist in terms which are unfortunately familiarly
sympathetic and without any serious scepticism or scrutiny.

When the time came for the respondent to give evidence against Kozionas in the committal proceedings he completely recanted his account that Kozionas was involved, and as a result the charges against Kozionas were withdrawn.

It is his perjury in that respect that formed the basis of the charge the sentence of which is now a subject of review.

The sentence was imposed by the same sentencing Judge as

sentenced him in respect of the armed robbery charge. His
Honour referred to that sentence and said that the
circumstances of the sentence would have been threatening
from the respondent's point of view because Kozionas' legal
representatives had sought and obtained permission to be

present to hear the details of the submissions made.

The learned sentencing Judge said that in the end he had
formed the view in respect…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Triantaffillopoulas; ex parte and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] QCA 336
Decision Date: 19/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on John Perry Triantaffillopoulas for committing perjury. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, served through an intensive correction order, for lying during his testimony against his accomplice, Kozionas, in a case where he was originally sentenced for armed robbery. The appeal challenges the appropriateness of the sentence, arguing that it does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the perjury offence.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge was appropriate, particularly in light of the gravity of the offence of perjury and the circumstances under which it was committed. The appeal centred on whether the non-custodial sentence was justified, considering the respondent's history and the nature of the perjury. The court had to weigh the mitigating factors presented, such as the respondent's willingness to testify against his accomplice, against the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not sufficiently severe to address the seriousness of the perjury. The judges emphasised that perjury undermines the criminal justice system and should be dealt with accordingly. They noted that the original sentence had been lenient, possibly due to the respondent's willingness to testify, and that this leniency did not appropriately account for the gravity of the perjury offence. The court also highlighted the respondent's failure to comply with the terms of his intensive correction order, further justifying a harsher sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to two years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole after nine months. A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent, to remain in the Registry for seven days or until further order.

Orders