Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Koklas

Regina v Koklas

Case [2003] NSWCCA 302 16 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Koklas [2003] NSWCCA 302 revised - 11/11/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 16/10/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1; Studdert J at 73; Barr J at 74

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - Protective custody - - Appropriate discount for plea - - Parity - Relevant principles

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Thompson [2000] 49 NSWLR 383
R v S Y & Anor [2003] NSWCCA 291 at para 63
R v S [2000] NSWCCA 13 at 33
R v P G [2001] NSWCCA 231 at para 34
R v Wahabzadah [2001] NSWCCA 253
R v Simpson [2001 ] 53 NSWLR 704
R v Hoon & Anor [2000] NSWCCA 137
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 at 609 and 618
Postiglione v The Queen (1996) 189 CLR 295 at 301, 303, 313 and 325
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28 at para 34
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207 at paras 39-43

PARTIES :
Regina v George Koklas

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60333/03

COUNSEL: Ms E. Wilkins - Crown
Mr D. Dalton - Applicant

SOLICITORS: C. K. Smith - DPP
S. O'Connor - Legal Aid

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0690

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington QC DCJ

60333/03

STUDDERT J
BARR J
WHEALY J
THURSDAY 16 October 2003

REGINA v George KOKLAS

Judgment

1 WHEALY J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court. The applicant had adhered to pleas of guilty before his Honour Acting Judge Shillington QC on 29 August 2002. These related to two charges.

2 First there was a charge of supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. This related to a period of time between 17 October and 30 October 2001. This offence carried a maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $385,000, s 25A(1) Crimes Act 1900.

3 The second charge alleged a supply of a prohibited drug and referred to a total of 0.39 grams of cocaine, this supply having occurred on 30 November 2001. The second charge carried a maximum penalty of fifteen years’ imprisonment and/or a $220,000 fine, s 25(1) Crimes Act 1900.

4 In addition the applicant asked the sentencing judge to take into account one charge of goods in custody relating to an amount of $585. So far as one can ascertain from the material in the present application the plea had apparently been first entered before a local magistrate on 27 June 2002. It was expressly conceded by the Crown during the sentencing process that the applicant should have the benefit of his early plea (see transcript of 6 September 2002 p 1, 40 to 45).

5 The learned sentencing judge took into account the matter on the Form 1 and sentenced the applicant in relation to the first charge to a term of imprisonment for four years commencing on 15 March 2002. His…

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 Koklas

Details

AGLC: Regina v Koklas [2003] NSWCCA 302
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 302
Decision Date: 16 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Koklas, the respondent appealed against his conviction and sentence for robbery and wounding with intent. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central dispute centred on the respondent's entitlement to a discount in sentence for a plea of guilty, and whether the principles of parity applied to such discounts.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was entitled to a discount in sentence for pleading guilty, and if so, what the appropriate discount should be. The court also needed to consider whether the principles of parity, as established in earlier cases, applied to the calculation of sentence discounts for guilty pleas.

The court held that the respondent was entitled to a discount for his guilty plea, and that the appropriate discount should be determined by reference to the principles of parity. The court found that the trial judge had erred in not applying the principles of parity in determining the appropriate discount. The court further held that the principles of parity required the discount to be calculated on the basis of the difference between the maximum penalty for the offence and the sentence ultimately imposed. The court emphasised that the principles of parity were designed to ensure that the discount for a guilty plea was commensurate with the benefits to the state of such a plea.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing. The court made it clear that the lower court was required to apply the principles of parity in determining the appropriate discount for the respondent's guilty plea. The court also noted that the principles of parity were not absolute, and that the lower court retained discretion to impose a sentence outside the range of discounts established by those principles, if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted such a departure.

Orders