The Queen v Arestis Ioannou

[2000] QCA 124

[2000] QCA 124
COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

[R v IOANNOU]

CA No 84 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

ARESTIS IOANNOU  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/04/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  The applicant has been charged with two very serious offences, murder and production of cannabis with a circumstance of aggravation, the second of those offences involving a very large and secreted cannabis plantation of which the applicant was a principal.

One of the other principals, a Mr Theodoridis, is going to be the main witness against him in respect of the murder charge.

Mr Bennett, who appears for him before this Court, accepts that he had an obligation to show cause, this being an offence of murder. 

The learned primary Judge refused the applicant bail for two reasons.  One was that her Honour thought that there was an unacceptable risk that he would fail to appear and surrender into custody at the appropriate time and the other was a risk which her Honour thought existed that he might interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

With respect to the first of these, the circumstances were that the applicant and a co-offender decamped immediately after the commission of these offences and fled to New South Wales, where he was ultimately apprehended and arrested.  Her Honour, in my view, was justified in thinking that that could very well happen again.

With respect to the second of these, Mr Bennett submits that on the Crown case, as is the case, Mr Theodoridis' evidence would be, and his statement is to the effect, that the applicant was told by his co-offender to shoot Mr Theodoridis at the time and refused to do so. 

Mr Bennett, therefore, submitted below and to this Court that it was even less likely therefore that he would be a serious risk to Mr Theodoridis if he was allowed bail. 

In my view, that does not logically follow.  At the time
Mr Ioannou decided not to shoot Mr Theodoridis, he appeared to think he had a reasonable chance of escaping, because that is what he and his co-offender, Mr Costi, then did.

Now, of course, the position has changed dramatically.  He has been charged with murder and the only principal witness against him is Mr Theodoridis.

The evidence against him on the murder charge, if Mr Theodoridis is to be accepted, is of a cold blooded murder, shooting a man in the back who was not at the time posing any serious danger to the applicant.

Her Honour took into account in considering those matters the seriousness of the charges and the strength of the Crown case against the applicant.  In my view, there is no error shown in any of the reasoning adopted by her Honour and I would therefore refuse the appeal.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I agree.
THOMAS JA:  I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The appeal is dismissed. 

-----