R v Yannopoulos

[2002] VSC 400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1507 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v

DENNIS GEORGE YANNOPOULOS

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 June 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dennis George Yannopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 400

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Taking part in an illegal enterprise when it was contemplated that a loaded gun might be used –  Prison for 5 years – Non-parole period of three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson with Mr D Hallowes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Taft	Andrew George Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1. Dennis Yannopoulos.  You have pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter.  Quang Minh Vo was killed at St Albans on 12 February 2001.  Shortly after the death of the deceased from gunshot injuries, you were charged with his murder.

1. In February 2001, you were a friend of David Attard.  Sacha Oakley was living with David Attard.  All three of you were heroin users.  On 12 February 2001, the three of you wanted to buy heroin.  You planned how to get the heroin.  You went by car from the home of David Attard to a pawnbroker’s shop.  You had with you some car wheels belonging to David Attard.  The wheels were pawned.  The three of you went by car from the pawnshop to the place where you lived.  You went inside and came back with a metal box.  You opened the box in the car.  Inside the box was a handgun and bullets in a pouch.  You had bought that handgun a few days beforehand.  You went back to the home of David Attard.  There, you checked the gun.  You handed the gun over to David Attard in a waist bag.  You showed him how to use the gun.  There were a number of bullets in the gun.  Then, David Attard rang the deceased.

1. The deceased was a heroin dealer with whom David Attard had dealt before.  The plan was to meet the deceased to score heroin.  You were to get half a gram.  Between you, you did not have the money needed for half a gram.  It was part of the plan that the heroin would not be paid for.  It was a rip off situation.  David Attard put on the waist bag with the gun in it.  That must have signified to you that the loaded gun might have to be produced at least to scare the deceased if the rip off went wrong.

1. After the call was made, the three of you left for the place where David Attard was to meet the deceased.  The three of you set out in Sacha Oakley’s car.  She drove you and David Attard to the arranged meeting place in Douglas Avenue, St Albans.  David Attard had told you that the deceased did not want people around when the deal was to be done.  To avert concern, the car was parked nearby.  You waited with Sacha Oakley.  After waiting a while, she drove around the block.  The car passed by David Attard at the meeting place.  The car was again parked nearby.  You took over from Sacha Oakley in the driver’s seat.  As you waited, a motorcyclist on a motorcycle turned into Douglas Avenue.  You drove away from your parked position.  You drove around the block which is to the east of Douglas Avenue.  The route that you took was one that would enable you to pick up David Attard as you drove the car south along Douglas Avenue.

1. While the car, with you and Sacha Oakley in it, was on that route, the deceased was shot several times with the loaded gun.  Thus you neither saw nor heard the shooting.  You came very shortly after the shooting to the place where the deceased had been shot.  The deceased was on the ground.  David Attard was nearby.  He was trying to push a motorcycle.  You called for David Attard to get into the car, and he did.  You then drove away from the scene, and to David Attard’s home.

1. Some hours later, you were arrested by the police.  The handgun you had provided to David Attard had been returned to you.  When the police were about to arrest you, you tried to get rid of the gun.  You were then interviewed by the police.  In many respects what you then told the police was misleading and untrue.

1. This is a quite serious instance of a serious crime.  Your legal responsibility for what eventuated arises from it having been within your contemplation that an unlawful and dangerous act might be done in the course of your acting in the joint criminal enterprise.  You agreed to take part in a plan where a loaded gun would be readily to hand, and where it might be produced and fired.  There was, obviously, a high potential for serious injury and death.  I accept that the plan was one quickly conceived by a group of three heroin addicts with the aim of getting heroin.  I have noted your reaction, at times in the police interview, to questions as to the use that David Attard made of the gun.  I accept that you had a sense of disbelief that he had used it to shoot dead the deceased.

1. I have read the victim impact statements tendered to the court.  They have come from the mother of the deceased’s three young daughters, and from a sibling, on behalf of the father and four siblings of the deceased.  The lives of all have been significantly adversely affected by his death.

1. I turn to your background.  You are nearly 31 years of age.  You were born in September 1971.  You were raised by caring parents.  You have had a basic education.  You have a reasonable work record.  You have many prior convictions.  Some date back to 1989.  There have been several periods of imprisonment.  A term of 6 years in prison was imposed in 1992.  On the other hand, in the last 8 years, there have been only fines and short term suspended sentences.  In recent years, there are indications of a greater stability.  They include that you have had what had promised and still promises to be a good relationship with a young woman, who indicates that she will stand by you.  What prevented the potential for greater stability being realised was your addiction to heroin.  There have been a number of attempts to beat the addiction, but they have not succeeded.

1. There are a number of mitigating factors operating in your favour.  I have already noted that you have a supportive mother and female friend.  You have pleaded guilty.  Your plea of guilty facilitates the course of justice.  It is an indication of remorse, as is the disbelieving reaction exhibited to the police.  You have demonstrated in prison, as outside, a capacity to work hard, and to volunteer to do appropriate courses.

1. I must note that there are several respects in which your position differs considerably from that of Sacha Oakley, whom I have earlier sentenced.  You provided the gun that was used to shoot the deceased.  You showed David Attard how to use the gun.  You chose to lie to, and to try to mislead, the police.  Your maturity and prior convictions scarcely bear comparison with hers.  Further, and particularly significantly as a basis for disparity, she was prepared to give evidence if called on.

1. You have served to today, 12 September 2002, 577 days by way of pre-sentence detention.  I direct that that be entered in the court records.  I impose a sentence of imprisonment of five years.  I fix a non-parole period of three years.