VASSILIOU -v- R [1999] WASCA 140

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 140
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:47/1999	Heard:	3 AUGUST 1999
Coram:	IPP J ANDERSON J WHITE J	Delivered:	3/08/99
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL JAMES VASSILIOU THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Receiving stolen property Applicant convicted on own plea of 10 counts of receiving stolen property Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on each count not set aside as excessive
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Harwood v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950372; 27 July 1995 Negri v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980649; 18 September 1998 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Quinn v R, unreported; CCA SC of WA; Library No 930709; 10 December 1993 BAC v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950510; 25 September 1995 Ford v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980450; 11 August 1998 Hobson v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930715; 17 December 1993 Jaffrey v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950352; 27 July 1995 Jessop v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960644; 8 November 1996 Mignacca v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930348; 23 June 1993 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Halliday, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980143; 3 April 1998 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998 Russon v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950725; 21 December 1995 Siganto v R (1998) 73 ALJR 162 Thompson v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970435; 5 September 1997 Verschuren v R (1996) 17 WAR 467 Weng Keong Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : VASSILIOU -v- R [1999] WASCA 140 CORAM : IPP J

ANDERSON J

WHITE J

HEARD : 3 AUGUST 1999 DELIVERED : 3 AUGUST 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 47 of 1999 BETWEEN : DANIEL JAMES VASSILIOU

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Receiving stolen property - Applicant convicted on own plea of 10 counts of receiving stolen property - Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on each count not set aside as excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms H E Prince

Respondent : Mr M Mischin

Solicitors:

Applicant : D G Price & Co

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Harwood v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950372; 27 July 1995
Negri v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980649; 18 September 1998
Nevermann (1989) 43 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 Vassiliou v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vassiliou v The Queen [1999] WASCA 140
Case: [1999] WASCA 140
Decision Date: 3 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Vassiliou, appealed against his sentence, arguing it was excessive. He was convicted on his own plea of 10 counts of receiving stolen property. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Vassiliou argued that the cumulative effect of the concurrent sentences rendered his punishment unjust. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the nature of the offences. It noted the concurrent nature of the sentences, which meant Vassiliou was subject to only one term of imprisonment. The court found that the sentence did not deviate from the fundamental principles of sentencing, nor was it manifestly excessive.

The court examined the totality of Vassiliou's offending and the impact of his criminal conduct. It took into account his plea of guilty, which demonstrated a degree of remorse. The court also considered the need for general deterrence. It concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. Vassiliou's argument that the cumulative effect of concurrent sentences was excessive was rejected. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and was proportionate to the crimes. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.