Trikilis v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 340

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0445
GEORGE TRIKILIS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and HARPER JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	7 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 340	First Revision: 9 November 2011
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Trikilis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Douglas, 19 November 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking and possession of drugs of dependence – Sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment and cumulation of 6 months on a count of trafficking 271.6 grams of steroids manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr T Kassimatis	Valos Black and Assocs
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA
HARPER JA:

The appellant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, being MDMA, methylamphetamine and cocaine, in not less than a large commercial quantity (count 1); a count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, anabolic and androgenic steroidal agent (count 2); and a count of possession of a drug of dependence, cannabis (count 3).

A plea was conducted and on 19 November 2010, the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 7 years on count 1, for a term of 3 years and 6 months on count 2, and on count 3 was fined $100. The sentencing judge directed that 2 years of the sentence on count 2 be cumulated on the sentence on count 1, creating a total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment.

On 3 September 2009, the appellant was sentenced by a different judge in the County Court to a total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, for drug offences. The sentencing judge in the present case ordered that 2 years of the sentence which she imposed be served concurrently with the sentence imposed by the first judge and fixed a new non‑parole period of 7 years’ imprisonment.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned sentencing judge erred by:
(a)failing adequately to warn, or place counsel for the appellant on notice, that she intended to order substantial cumulation between the sentences she would impose on counts 1 and 2; and
(b)cumulating excessively two years of the sentence imposed on count 2 upon the sentence imposed on count 1.

2.        The learned sentencing judge erred by:
(a)       imposing individual terms of imprisonment; and
(b)       making orders for cumulation
which are, in particular in the light of the sentence the appellant was already serving, manifestly excessive.

The appellant’s trafficking was alleged to have occurred between 24 July 2008 and 27 January 2009. The cannabis the subject matter of count 3 was seized on 27 January 2009. In the period of the alleged trafficking, the appellant met an undercover police…

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 Trikilis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Trikilis v The Queen [2011] VSCA 340
Case: [2011] VSCA 340
Decision Date: 7 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Trikilis v The Queen revolved around the sentencing of the appellant for drug trafficking and possession. The appellant was convicted for trafficking 271.6 grams of steroids and possessing a quantity of the same substance, leading to a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with an additional six months cumulatively applied for the trafficking offence. The appellant challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court had to determine whether the cumulative sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offending, and whether there was a point of principle involved. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in his approach to sentencing, particularly in relation to the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed for both the trafficking and possession charges. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence was disproportionately severe in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and there was no point of principle involved. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the need to deter similar offending. The cumulative sentence, while lengthy, was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing for similar offences and rejected the argument that the sentence was disproportionately severe. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders