Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis - [2000] NSWSC 1201

CITATION: Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis [2000] NSWSC 1201

FILE NUMBER(S): SC L97/005

HEARING DATE(S): 1 December 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 11 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Dimitris Lagopodis

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J

COUNSEL : M. C. Grogan - Crown
P. Byrne SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Ross Hill & Associates - Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Robert Charles Veen - 7 July 2000

DECISION: Application granted.; In place of sentence of life imprisonment passed on 7 September 1990, sentence of imprisonment for a term of 18 years, with a non-parole period of 14 years.

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

Monday 11 December 2000

97/005 - Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Mr Dimitris Lagopodis, applies for the redetermination of a sentence of life imprisonment that I passed upon him on 7 September 1990. The application must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of schedule 1 to the recently enacted Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. 2 On 31 July 1990 the applicant was indicted before me, jointly with one Michael Kiely. Both were accused of having murdered one Mark Andrew Soyka. Both pleaded not guilty and thereupon they were tried jointly. The jury found both of them guilty as charged. Both were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
3   An appeal by the applicant against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 16 March 1992. An application for leave to appeal against sentence was lodged simultaneously with the appeal against conviction, but that application seems not to have been pursued. 4   The relevant objective facts are canvassed in my remarks on sentence of 7 September 1990 and I need not now repeat them in detail since the objective facts, as I then found them, and the objective culpability of the applicant, as I then assessed it, were not questioned at the hearing of the present application.
5   In 1990, and speaking of the objective culpability of the applicant, I made the following observations:

"It is put that the prisoner, as so depicted in those materials, is to be understood as having done what he did under what is described as a subtle manipulation by Mr Kiely, by whom it is fair to acknowledge at once, and on the material before this Court, Mr Lagopodis was undoubtedly influenced. But once it is conceded, as it has been frankly conceded in submissions at the Bar table, that Mr Lagopodis cannot be said to have been so overborne by Mr Kiely as to have lost his, Mr Lagopodis', own free will, then it seems to me to be next to impossible to envisage on the objective facts of this case any circumstances capable of mitigating at all, let alone mitigating significantly, Mr Lagopodis' own culpability in the decease of Mark Soyka.

6   The objective facts so far as Mr Lagopodis are concerned are perfectly clear. He was, on the view…

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 Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis

Details

AGLC: Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis [2000] NSWSC 1201
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1201
Decision Date: 11 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division, the case of Regina v Dimitris Lagopodis was heard by Sully J. The applicant, Dimitris Lagopodis, sought the redetermination of his life imprisonment sentence, imposed on 7 September 1990, for his role in the murder of Mark Andrew Soyka. Lagopodis had been jointly tried with Michael Kiely, who was also convicted of the murder. The applicant's appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1992. The primary legal issues in the case involved whether Lagopodis had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and remorse to warrant a redetermination of his life sentence and whether he posed a continuing threat to society.

The court examined the applicant's custodial history, professional assessments, and evidence of rehabilitation. Reports from the Serious Offenders' Review Council indicated that Lagopodis had made progress towards rehabilitation and was no longer considered a high security risk. Additionally, reports from a forensic psychiatrist and a clinical team leader highlighted Lagopodis's efforts towards self-improvement and his low risk of reoffending. The court also noted that Lagopodis had shown some remorse, though it was not conclusive. The court found that the applicant's progress and the absence of evidence suggesting he would reoffend warranted a redetermination of his sentence.

Sully J concluded that the application should be granted, and the sentence of life imprisonment was redetermined to a term of eighteen years with a non-parole period of fourteen years. The new sentence was backdated to 17 April 1989, and Lagopodis would be eligible for parole on 16 April 2003. The court emphasized the importance of continued management and rehabilitation efforts to prepare Lagopodis for eventual release into the community.

Orders