Regina v Harrison and Georgiou - [2003] NSWSC 1240

CITATION: REGINA v. HARRISON & GEORGIOU [2003] NSWSC 1240

HEARING DATE(S): 26/02/03-28/02/03; 03/03/03-06/03/03; 10/03/03-13/03/03; 17/03/03-20/03/03; 24/03/03-17/03/03; 31/03/03-04/04/03; 07/04/03-09/04/03; 06/06/03; 24/10/03; 30/10/03; 19/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

DECISION: For each of the offences of murder, each offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 33 years. In each case there will be a non-parole period of 28 years. The offender Harrison's sentence and non-parole period is to date from 9 November 1997. The offender Georgiou's sentence and non-parole period is to date from 3 February 2002. The earliest date the offender Harrison will be eligible for release on parole is 8 November 2025. The earliest date the offender Georgiou will be eligible for release on parole is 2 February 2030.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - multiple murders - single episode - previously sentenced for same crimes to determinate sentences - previous sentences set aside following offenders' successful appeals - presently convicted of a lesser number of crimes - persuasive effect of previous order - whether criteria for life sentences met - discretion not to impose life sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Georgiou [1999] NSWCCA 125
Harrison & Georgiou [2001] NSWCCA 46
Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
Pearce (1998) 156 ALR 684

PARTIES :
REGINA v. HARRISON, Bruce Malcolm;
REGINA v. GEORGIOU, Konstantinos

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70105 of 2001;; No. 70217 of 2001

COUNSEL: Crown: W. Robinson, QC.
Harrison: P. Bodor, QC.
Georgiou: G. Wendler

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Harrison: Michael Croke & Co.
Georgiou: Xenos Jordan

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER 2003

No. 70105 of 2001
No. 70217 of 2001

REGINA v. BRUCE MALCOLM HARRISON
REGINA v. KONSTANTINOS GEORGIOU

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 9 April 2003, following a lengthy trial before me, verdicts of guilty on each count of murder were returned by the jury against each of the offenders, Bruce Malcolm Harrison and Konstantinos Georgiou.

2 Subsequently, I have received lengthy submissions orally and in writing from the Crown and from counsel for the offenders in respect of the appropriate sentences to be imposed. The offences of which the offenders were convicted in each case have been the subject of numerous proceedings in this court and in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

3 The offenders and in particular Konstantinos Georgiou have been engaged in litigation concerning these offences for a very long period of time now. The short facts of those offences are to be found set out in judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal of 25 May 1999 in Regina v. Georgiou [1999] NSWCCA 125; in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal following the appeal from the trial before Dowd, J. as to the convictions that occurred on 22 August 1999, that being Regina v. Harrison and Georgiou [2001] NSWCCA 46; the judgment of 21 November 2001 which has been referred to in my…

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 Regina v Harrison and Georgiou 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: [2003] NSWSC 1240
Decision Date: 19 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Harrison and Georgiou, the defendants were convicted of a series of murders that occurred in a single episode. Both individuals had previously been sentenced to determinate terms of imprisonment for these crimes but had their sentences set aside following successful appeals. Upon retrial, they were found guilty of a reduced number of offences. The primary issue for the court was whether, given the persuasive effect of the previous order, the criteria for imposing a life sentence were met, and whether the court should exercise its discretion not to impose a life sentence.

The court was required to determine if the persuasive effect of the previous order, where the defendants were sentenced to determinate terms, should influence the current sentencing decision. It also needed to assess whether the criteria for imposing a life sentence were satisfied, considering the lesser number of convictions at the retrial. Additionally, the court had to weigh the discretion to not impose a life sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed.

The court held that the persuasive effect of the previous order, where the defendants were sentenced to determinate terms, should be considered in the current sentencing decision. However, it was determined that the criteria for imposing a life sentence were not met due to the reduced number of convictions at the retrial. The court exercised its discretion not to impose a life sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the crimes and the defendants' previous sentences. The court ultimately imposed sentences that reflected the reduced number of convictions and the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court involved the imposition of sentences that were commensurate with the reduced number of convictions and the nature of the crimes, reflecting the court's discretion and the persuasive effect of the previous order.

Orders