Legal Research
Cases
R v Ververis

R v Ververis

Case [2010] VSCA 7 11 February 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No 614 of 2009
	Respondent
v
PETER VERVERIS	Appellant

THE QUEEN	No 615 of 2009
	Respondent
v
CHRISTOPHER VERVERIS	Appellant

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and BUCHANAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 January 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 February 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSCA 7
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Ververis and Ververis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 28 April 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Two co-accused brothers – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Possession of a drug of dependence – Possession of substance, material, documents and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence – Whether emotional distress explanatory of offending – Whether judge bound to accept unsworn assertions of mitigating facts – Manifest excess – Cumulation – Delay between offending and sentencing – Appeals dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G J C Silbert SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant Peter Ververis	Mr L Carter	Doogue & O’Brien
For the Appellant Christopher Ververis	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Doogue & O’Brien

MAXWELL P
BUCHANAN JA:

This is an appeal against sentence by two brothers, Peter Ververis (‘Peter’) and Christopher Ververis (‘Christopher’). Peter pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence. Christopher pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a drug of dependence, and one count of possession of a substance, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence. The sentences imposed are set out in the table below.

PETER
COUNT	OFFENCE		MAXIMUM		SENTENCE		CUMULATION
1	Trafficking in a drug of dependence		15y		2y 6m		-
Total effective sentence: 2y 6m Non-parole period: 1y 6m
CHRISTOPHER
COUNT		OFFENCE		MAXIMUM		SENTENCE	CUMULATION
2		Possession of a drug of dependence		5y		1y	6m
3		Possession of a substance, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence		10y		3y	Base
Total effective sentence: 3y 6m Non-parole period: 2y 3m

Factual background

Peter and Christopher resided together in Centre Dandenong Road, Cheltenham (‘the premises’). Peter was aged 26 at the time of the offending, and 28 at the time of sentence. Christopher was aged 21 at the time of the offending and 24 at the time of sentence.

On Thursday 7 September 2006, police executed search warrants at the premises, as well as at an address in Bay Road, Cheltenham (‘the Bay Road address’).

At the premises, Christopher was found in possession of 415 grams of pseudoephedrine (90 per cent purity). This constituted the basis for count 2 – possession of a drug of dependence. Peter was found in possession of a sum of $11,675.00 in cash. He was also found in possession of 417.6 grams of methylamphetamine, as follows: 397.4 grams (14 per cent purity) and 20.2 grams (70 per cent purity). This constituted the basis for count 1 – trafficking in a drug of dependence by possession for sale. The traffickable quantity…

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 Ververis

Details

AGLC: The Queen and Respondent v Peter Ververis [2010] VSCA 7
Case: [2010] VSCA 7
Decision Date: 11 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ververis involved two brothers who were co-accused in a drug trafficking case. The defendants were found guilty of trafficking in a drug of dependence, possession of a drug of dependence, and possession of substances, materials, documents, and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendants appealed against their sentences. The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the emotional distress experienced by the defendants could be considered as a mitigating factor, whether the trial judge was bound to accept the defendants' unsworn assertions of mitigating facts, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court considered the mitigating factors presented by the defendants, including their emotional distress. It was determined that while emotional distress could be a relevant mitigating factor, it did not necessarily warrant a reduced sentence. The court also addressed the issue of whether the trial judge was bound to accept the defendants' unsworn assertions of mitigating facts. It was held that the trial judge was not bound to accept these assertions and could exercise their discretion in determining the weight to be given to such factors. The court further examined the cumulative effect of the defendants' criminal history and the delay between the offending and the sentencing. Ultimately, the court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and were within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld. The court found that the mitigating factors presented by the defendants, including emotional distress, did not warrant a significant reduction in their sentences. Additionally, the court determined that the trial judge was not bound to accept the unsworn assertions of mitigating facts and had exercised their discretion appropriately. The cumulative effect of the defendants' criminal history and the delay between the offending and sentencing were also considered, with the court finding that the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for the offences.

Orders