Regina v Page (aka Karipis) - [2000] NSWCCA 484

CITATION: Regina v Page (aka Karipis) [2000] NSWCCA 484

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60811/98

HEARING DATE(S): 22/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v George Page (aka Pandelis Karipis)

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1 & 36; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 94/11/1234

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL : (Applicant): In Person
(Crown): W G Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: (Applicant): In Person
(Crown): S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - severity appeal - whether judge erred in accumulating sentences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
R v Gower (1991) 56 A Crim R 115
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60811/98

BARR J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Wednesday 22 November 2000

REGINA v George PAGE (aka Pandelis Karipis)
JUDGMENT
1    BARR J: The Court is in a position to give judgment. I will ask Carruthers AJ to give the first judgment.
2 CARRUTHERS AJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against alleged severity of sentence in respect of one count of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 35(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, (to which I shall refer as the Act), which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, and one count of supply prohibited drug, heroin, pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2000 penalty units.
3 The applicant, who was originally charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 33 of the Act, entered a plea of not guilty to that charge when he was arraigned on 9 November 1998 before Freeman DCJ in the Sydney District Court and pleaded guilty to an alternative charge offered for the first time of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 35(b) of the Act as I have indicated. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to the lesser count in full satisfaction of the indictment.
4    The applicant also pleaded guilty to the third count on the indictment of supply prohibited drug.
5    He was sentenced by Freeman DCJ on each of counts 2 and 3 to a minimum term of two years and six months imprisonment, commencing on 21 June 2000 and expiring on 20 December 2002 and an additional term of two years and six months commencing on 21 December 2002 and expiring on 20 June 2005. Thus the sentences were to be served concurrently.
6    At the time of sentence, the applicant was serving a sentence of a minimum term of two years and two months commencing on 22 April 1998 and expiring on 21 June 2000 and an additional term of one year and ten months. This sentence was in relation to an offence of supply prohibited drug, which was committed…

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 Page (aka Karipis) 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: [2000] NSWCCA 484
Decision Date: 22 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defendant, Page, also known as Karipis, who appealed against the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in the accumulation of sentences imposed on the defendant for multiple offences. The case arose from a series of criminal activities, culminating in the defendant being convicted on multiple counts, each carrying a separate sentence. The trial judge had ordered that these sentences be served consecutively, which the defendant argued was unduly harsh.

The legal issue at the heart of the appeal was whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in determining the cumulative effect of the sentences. The defendant's counsel contended that the judge had failed to properly consider the principles of proportionality and totality, which require that the overall punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offences and the culpability of the offender. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the judge had correctly exercised his discretion, taking into account the cumulative impact of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court considered the relevant authorities and statutory provisions governing the accumulation of sentences. It held that the trial judge had not erred in his approach to the sentencing process. The court found that the judge had appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the need to protect the community, and the individual circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the judge had exercised his discretion within the bounds of legal correctness. The appeal against the severity of the sentence was therefore dismissed.

The High Court made no orders regarding the appeal. The original sentences imposed by the trial judge remained in place, with the cumulative effect as determined by the trial court.

Orders