Sakipon v The King - [2025] VSCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0196

BUNSIE SAKIPON	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 93
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 1278 (Judge Dalziel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Obtaining financial advantage by deception (7 charges) and obtaining property by deception (4 charges) – Offending over 16 months, involving 10 victims – Total obtained, $110, 610 – Relevant criminal history – Pleas of guilty having significant utilitarian value – TES of 7 years and 7 months, with NPP of 6 years – Whether judge erred in concluding that applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation were poor – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – No error in judge’s conclusion of poor prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr P Kounnas
Respondent:		Ms E Ramsay
Solicitors
Applicant:	Giorgianni & Liang
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KAYE JA:

On 9 August 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to seven charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception[1] and four charges of obtaining property by deception.[2] On 21 August 2024, he was sentenced as follows:
[1]Contrary to s 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

Charge	Offence	Amount obtained	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$14,720	10 years	3 years	1 year
2	Obtain property by deception	$16,000	10 years	3 years	1 year
3	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$47,400	10 years	4 years	Base
4	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$3,200	10 years	1 year	3 months
5	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$850	10 years	6 months	1 month
6	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$7,670	10 years	2 years	4 months
7	Obtain property by deception	$3,170	10 years	1 year	2 months
8	Obtain property by deception	$900	10 years	6 months	1 month
9	Obtain property by deception	$8,000	10 years	2 years	3 months
10	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$3,700	10 years	1 year	2 months
11	Obtain financial advantage by deception	$5,000	10 years	18 months	3 months
Total Effective Sentence:			7 years and 7 months
Non-Parole Period:			6 years
Pre-sentence detention declared:			292 days
6AAA Declaration			9 years, with non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. His proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1.The judge erred by finding that the applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation are ‘poor’.
2.In all the circumstances, the individual sentences and orders for cumulation were productive of a total effective sentence and non-parole period that are manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

On 8 March 2011, the applicant was sentenced by Judge Chettle in the County Court to a term of imprisonment of 7 years, with a non-parole…

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 Sakipon v The King

Details

AGLC: Sakipon v The King [2025] VSCA 93
Case: [2025] VSCA 93
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sakipon was convicted and sentenced in the County Court for offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception and obtaining property by deception. The offences spanned over 16 months, involved 10 victims, and totalled $110,610. Sakipon appealed the sentence of 7 years and 7 months total effective sentence with a non-parole period of 6 years, arguing that the judge erred in concluding that the prospects of rehabilitation were poor and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal centred on two main legal issues: whether the judge made an error in concluding that the prospects of rehabilitation were poor, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court examined the nature of the offences, the total amount obtained, the relevant criminal history of the applicant, and the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas. The Court found no error in the judge's conclusion regarding the poor prospects of rehabilitation. The Court held that the judge was entitled to form this view based on the extensive offending history and the nature of the deceptions. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence as appropriate. The judge's assessment of the prospects of rehabilitation and the overall sentence were deemed correct, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

Orders