Legal Research
Cases
Soteriou v R

Soteriou v R

Case [2013] VSCA 328

Conviction

Confession

Sentence

Unsafe and Unsatisfactory Conviction

Extension of Time Application

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0143
S APCR 2011 0310

VICKY SOTERIOU	Applicant
	V
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and PRIEST JJA and LASRY AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	18 November 2013
DATE OF ORDERS DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REASONS	18 November 2013 26 November 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 328
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Soteriou v R ([2011] VSC 623, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Curtain, 28 November 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction - Application for leave to appeal - Attempted murder - Crown case of concert and alternatively that applicant counselled and procured co-offender to kill victim – Plea by co-offender to charge of intentionally causing serious injury accepted by Crown – Co-offender called by Crown at trial of applicant – Crown submission that jury should disbelieve parts of co‑offender’s evidence which could have assisted applicant – Whether judge erred in leaving counselling and procuring basis of guilt to jury – Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Confession – Whether judge erred in finding that Crown had satisfied requirement for admissibility of confession under s 85(2), Evidence Act 2008.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Whether conviction for attempted murder unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Extension of time application – Long and unexplained delay- Sole proposed Ground near hopeless- Application refused.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P F Tehan QC with Mr T Alexander	Cash & Stavroulakis Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnett	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

On 7 October 2011, after three hours of deliberations, a jury in the Supreme Court found the applicant, Vicky Soteriou, guilty of the attempted murder of her husband Chris Soteriou. The offence was committed when, in the late evening of 2 January 2010, the victim was attacked with a knife by Ari Dimitrakis, the applicant’s lover. The wounds which Dimitrakis inflicted were numerous and grave. They might well have proved fatal had it not been the case that two doctors chanced to be nearby in the street in which the attack took place, and were able to render immediate aid.

The applicant and Dimitrakis were charged with attempted murder with an alternative charge of intentionally causing serious injury. The case against the applicant was put as one of concert, and alternatively that she counselled and procured Dimitrakis to kill her husband.

Dimitrakis pleaded guilty to the charge of intentionally causing serious injury, and the Crown accepted his plea. On 8 September 2010 he was sentenced by Coghlan J (as his Honour then was) to seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. The judge stated that he imposed a sentence which was less than it otherwise would have been because Dimitrakis had undertaken to give evidence in the applicant’s trial. At that trial, Dimitrakis did so.

Having been convicted of…

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 Soteriou v R

Details

AGLC: Soteriou v R [2013] VSCA 328
Case: [2013] VSCA 328
Decision Date: 18 November 2013 26 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Soteriou v R, the applicant, Soteriou, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for attempted murder, along with an application to extend the time for an appeal against his sentence. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to address several legal issues related to the conviction and sentence. The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in leaving the counselling and procuring basis of guilt to the jury, considering the plea of the co-offender, who admitted to causing serious injury to the victim, was accepted by the Crown. Another issue was whether the judge erred in finding that the Crown had satisfied the requirement for admissibility of a confession under section 85(2) of the Evidence Act 2008. Lastly, the court had to determine whether the conviction for attempted murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no error in the judge's decision to leave the counselling and procuring basis of guilt to the jury. The court considered the plea of the co-offender as a factor that could have assisted the applicant, but concluded that it did not necessitate a different approach. Regarding the admissibility of the confession, the court found that the Crown had satisfied the requirements under section 85(2) of the Evidence Act 2008, and therefore, the judge's finding was correct. The court also determined that the conviction for attempted murder was not unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The application for leave to appeal against the conviction was ultimately refused.

In addition to the conviction, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, citing a long and unexplained delay. However, the court found the sole proposed ground of appeal to be near hopeless, and therefore, the application for an extension of time was also refused.

Orders