Legal Research
Cases
Stamatopoulos v The Queen

Stamatopoulos v The Queen

Case [2018] WASCA 148 29 August 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   STAMATOPOULOS -v- THE QUEEN [2018] WASCA 148
CORAM:   MAZZA JA
MITCHELL JA
PRITCHARD J

HEARD:   9 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   29 AUGUST 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 141 of 2017
BETWEEN:   PETER STAMATOPOULOS
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   BOWDEN DCJ
File Number             :   IND 2058 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - 60 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth of Australia by deception - Three counts of attempting to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage from the Commonwealth of Australia by deception - Total effective sentence of 8 years' imprisonment - Non-parole period of 4 years - Totality principle

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), s 16A(2), s 16B, s 21B
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 134.2(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC
Respondent	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Holborn Lenhoff Massey
Respondent	:	Director Of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Beard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 262
Bransby v The Queen [2010] WASCA 165
Chen v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 122
De Hollander v The Queen [2012] WASCA 127
Dwayhi v The Queen; Bechara v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 67
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Ly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 28
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pollock v The Queen [2012] WASCA 30
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Baunach [1999] QCA 207
R v Hawkins [2013] NSWCCA 208
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550
Ramanah v The Queen [2006] WASCA 112
Robertson v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 270
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114
Thompson v The Queen [2005] WASCA 223

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal against sentence.
The appellant was charged on indictment in the District Court with 60 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth of Australia by deception, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) (counts 1 ‑ 58, 60 and 61). The appellant was also charged with three counts of attempting to commit an offence contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (counts 59, 62 and 63).[1] The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a pecuniary penalty not exceeding 600 penalty units.[2]
[1] AB 29 - 39.
[2] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4B(2); the monetary value of a…

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 Stamatopoulos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stamatopoulos v The Queen [2018] WASCA 148
Case: [2018] WASCA 148
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stamatopoulos appealed against his conviction and sentence in relation to 60 counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and three counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the appeal against the sentence imposed. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether the totality principle was appropriately applied.

The court examined the totality principle, which refers to the need to consider the overall sentence rather than individual sentences for each count. The court noted that while each offence was serious, the appellant's actions were part of a single scheme over a period of time. The court also considered the appellant's culpability, the harm caused, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the offending and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders