Legal Research
Cases
Stephan v The King

Stephan v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 121 12 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0037

RAYMOND STEPHAN	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL CJ and JANE DIXON AJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 June 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 121
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1517 (Judge Chettle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Kidnapping – Blackmail – Intentionally causing injury – Make threat to kill – Appellant sentenced to 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment – Co-offender sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment – Whether parity principle infringed – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Where appellant aged 21 years at time of offending – Minor criminal history – Where co-offender had extensive criminal record and more prominent role in the offending – Differences in sentence giving rise to justifiable sense of grievance – Appeal allowed.

Crimes Act 1958, ss 18, 20, 63A, 87(1), 323, 324; Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(2H).

Ah-Kau and Ofamooni v The Queen [2018] VSCA 296; Anthony v The Queen [2016] VSCA 22 ; Ayol v The Queen [2014] VSCA 151; Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; Guest v The Queen [2014] VSCA 29; Hafner v The Queen [2012] VSCA 190; Kumas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 287; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Roe v The Queen [2021] VSCA 54; Taleb v R [2014] VSCA 96; Wan v The Queen [2019] VSCA 81, considered.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr P Smallwood with Mr JJ Bourke
Respondent:		Mr J Shaw
Solicitors
Appellant:	Stephan Andrianakis & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NIALL CJ
JANE DIXON AJA:

Introduction and overview

On 18 May 2023, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of one charge of kidnapping, one charge of blackmail, one charge of intentionally causing injury and one charge of making a threat to kill. These are the offences to which his appeal against sentence relates.[1]
[1]The appeal was specified not to relate to the sentences imposed on the plea indictment (Indictment No. M11129349) or for the related summary charges, other than to the extent that those sentences were relevant to the non-parole period fixed.
The appellant also pleaded guilty to one charge of possess a drug of dependence on a separate indictment. Five related summary offences to which he also pleaded guilty were taken into account.[2]
[2]Namely, two charges of possess a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval, and three charges of possess a Schedule 4 poison.

Procedural background to sentencing

The appellant was one of four offenders charged with kidnapping and related offences (the ‘kidnapping incident’) committed on 17 May 2021. The four offenders were the appellant and his father Robert Stephan (‘Robert S’), Wayne Favaloro (‘Wayne F’) and Ricky Favaloro (‘Ricky F’).
The appellant and Robert S elected…

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 Stephan v The King

Details

AGLC: Stephan v The King [2025] VSCA 121
Case: [2025] VSCA 121
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Stephan, appealed his sentence for kidnapping, blackmail, and intentionally causing injury, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and breached the parity principle. The trial judge had sentenced Stephan to four and a half years’ imprisonment, whereas his co-offender, who had a more extensive criminal history and played a more prominent role in the offending, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The respondent, The King, defended the trial judge’s sentencing decision. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it infringed the parity principle. The court noted that while there was a difference in the sentences, it did not necessarily mean that the appellant's sentence was unjust. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the parity principle as the trial judge had considered the relevant factors, including the appellant's age and criminal history. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing and the factors that the trial judge had considered in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the trial judge had considered the appellant’s age, criminal history, and the role he played in the offending. The court also noted that the trial judge had considered the co-offender's more extensive criminal history and more prominent role in the offending. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion properly and had not committed any error in law. The court also noted that the difference in the sentences did not necessarily mean that the appellant's sentence was unjust. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the parity principle. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders