Regina v Maloukis - [2002] NSWCCA 155

CITATION: Regina v Maloukis [2002] NSWCCA 155

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60121 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): 30 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 April 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
WILLIAM STEVEN MALOUKIS

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 30 and 32; Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0156

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL :
L M B Lamprati
(Crown)
H Dhanji
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor
(Crown)
D J Humphreys
(Respondent)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Reg v Camilleri NSWCCA 8 February 1990
Reg v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Reg v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
Reg v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
Reg v Ranse (unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1994)
Reg v Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594
Reg v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81

DECISION: See paragraphs 27, 28 & 29

- 4 -

(Ex Tempore – Revised)

[2002] NSWCCA 155

60121 of 2002

HODGSON JA
LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
TUESDAY 30 APRIL 2002

REGINA v MALOUKIS William Steven

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: The Crown appeals against what it asserts to be the inadequacy of sentences imposed upon the respondent by his Honour Judge Shillington in the District Court on 14 February 2002.

2 The respondent had pleaded guilty on 27 April 2001 to five counts in an indictment. The first count was for robbery (s 94 of the Crimes Act, 1900) for which a maximum penalty of fourteen years is provided, and counts 2-5 were for aggravated robbery under s 95(1) for which a maximum penalty of 20 years is provided.

3 The respondent was sentenced on the second count, taking into account eleven offences in a Form 1, to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years, special circumstances having been found. In respect of each of the other counts, his Honour imposed a fixed term of two years. All sentences were ordered to date from 23 May 2000 resulting in the respondent presently being eligible for release to parole on 22 May this year.

4 The circumstances of aggravation in each of counts 2-5 was the use of corporal violence upon the victim. The Form 1 offences involved aggravated robbery, robbery, stealing from the person, and a goods in custody offence. With the exception of the goods in custody offence on Form 1, all the offences involved what is called bag-snatching. With respect to the aggravated offences in general terms, the violence to the victims occurred in taking the bag from them, some of whom were pulled to the ground and injured.

5 The offences charged in the indictment were committed during the period 10 December 1999 and 20 May 2000. They took place in car parks of shopping centres. Typically the victims, all of whom were women, were walking in a car park and the respondent, driving a car, would drive close to the…

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 Maloukis

Details

AGLC: Regina v Maloukis [2002] NSWCCA 155
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 155
Decision Date: 30 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed on William Steven Maloukis by Judge Shillington in the District Court, asserting they were inadequate. Maloukis had pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, including aggravated robbery involving violence against elderly victims. The Crown argued that the sentences did not appropriately reflect the objective seriousness of the crimes or the need for general deterrence. The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the sentencing principles, considering both the objective gravity of the crimes and the subjective factors presented by Maloukis, including his mental health and difficult personal circumstances. The Court found that Judge Shillington had erred by placing too much weight on subjective factors and not sufficiently considering the totality of Maloukis's criminal conduct.

The Court concluded that the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of Maloukis's crimes or the need for general deterrence. While acknowledging the principle of double jeopardy and Maloukis's subjective circumstances, the Court determined that the sentences should better reflect the gravity of the offences and the necessity to protect the public. The Court varied the sentence for count 2 to be cumulative with the other sentences, resulting in a four-year sentence with an 18-month non-parole period. The recommendations regarding psychiatric treatment were confirmed.

Orders