Spanos v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0195
APHRODITE SPANOS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and WEINBERG JA and WILLIAMS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 253
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Spanos (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gamble, 30 June 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence imposed after jury trial – Appellant aided and abetted co-offender – Guilty plea by co-offender – Whether parity principle breached – Whether sufficient weight given to appellant’s more limited physical role, age, better rehabilitation prospects and lack of relevant prior offending – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A Barrie	Haines & Polites
For the Crown	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WARREN CJ:

I invite Williams AJA to deliver the first judgment.

WILLIAMS AJA:

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of intentionally causing serious injury. She was sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of five years, on 30 June 2011. Her co‑offender and brother, Arthur Spanos, had made an early plea of guilty to the same offence. He had been sentenced on 1 May 2010, to eight years and six months' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of six years and three months.

A judge of the Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against her sentence on grounds expressed as follows in her 23 August 2011 notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence:

1.That the learned trial judge imposed a sentence that was disproportionate when compared with the sentence imposed on a co‑offender, Arthur Spanos, which, it is submitted, breached the principle of parity.
2. That the learned trial judge erred by not attaching sufficient weight to the appellant's limited physical role in the attack, the appellant's lack of prior offending and the appellant's age and prospects of rehabilitation.

Circumstances of the offence

The co‑offender had been a friend of the victim, Steven Papathanasiou, for some years. They had spent time together in gaol. The appellant had also known the victim for a considerable time and, at some point, had been involved in a relationship with him.

On 21 September 2007, the appellant and the victim were engaged in a verbal and physical altercation in Swan Street, Richmond. This altercation was the catalyst for the incident in which the victim was seriously injured some hours later. After the

altercation, the appellant contacted the police and claimed to have been assaulted. She declined to be medically examined or to make a statement and police drove her to her home in Stawell Street, Richmond. She then contacted the co‑offender and complained about the altercation.

The co‑offender came to the appellant's house and they discussed the situation before deciding to visit the victim that evening. The co‑offender was carrying a knife when they went 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 Spanos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Spanos v The Queen [2012] VSCA 253
Case: [2012] VSCA 253
Decision Date: 10 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spanos v The Queen, the appellant, Spanos, appealed against the sentence imposed following his conviction for aiding and abetting a co-offender in a criminal act. Spanos was found to have played a supporting role in the offence, while his co-offender entered a guilty plea. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence breached the principle of parity and if sufficient weight was given to Spanos' more limited physical role, age, better rehabilitation prospects, and lack of relevant prior offending.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing principles of parity and individualisation were appropriately applied. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given his lesser role and personal circumstances. The court was required to assess whether the trial judge sufficiently considered these factors in determining the sentence. The co-offender's guilty plea and the resultant sentence also formed part of the comparative analysis in the appeal.

The High Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's arguments and balanced them against the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the sentence did not breach the principle of parity, as the differences in roles and personal circumstances were adequately reflected in the sentence imposed. The court further held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error of principle that warranted interference with the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and maintained the sentence as imposed by the trial judge. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the sentence as just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders