R v Kalathas (Part 2) [2021] NSWDC 753

R v Kalathas (Part 2) [2021] NSWDC 753

The offender arranged a meeting with his employee about an unpaid wages claim, assembled others for that meeting, and used violence and threats to impose his will and obtain a financial advantage. Because employer violence against an employee required denunciation and both specific and general deterrence, the leniency inherent in an Intensive Correction Order was not permissible and only full-time custody was appropriate. Starting from 18 months imprisonment, the Court applied a 10% discount, rounded the sentence down to 16 months, backdated it for 27 days in custody, and found special circumstances justifying a nine-month non-parole period because this was effectively the offender's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to full-time imprisonment for a total term of one year and four months, with a non-parole period of nine months and special circumstances found.
Legal Topics
['detain Without Consent With Intent to Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'actual Bodily Harm Occasioned at the Time of Detaining' 'employer Violence Against Employee' 'intensive Correction Order' 'full Time Custody' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'covid 19 Custody Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['detain Without Consent With Intent to Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'actual Bodily Harm Occasioned at the Time of Detaining' 'employer Violence Against Employee' 'intensive Correction Order' 'full Time Custody' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'covid 19 Custody Conditions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an Intensive Correction Order should be imposed instead of full-time custody.' "What sentence and non-parole period were appropriate for the offender's offence." 'Whether special circumstances justified a non-parole period shorter than the statutory ratio.' "What weight should be given to the offender's late acceptance of responsibility, prior good character, prior time in custody, family circumstances, and COVID-19 custody conditions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender arranged a meeting with his employee about an unpaid wages claim, assembled others for that meeting, and used violence and threats to impose his will and obtain a financial advantage. Because employer violence against an employee required denunciation and both specific and general deterrence, the leniency inherent in an Intensive Correction Order was not permissible and only full-time custody was appropriate. Starting from 18 months imprisonment, the Court applied a 10% discount, rounded the sentence down to 16 months, backdated it for 27 days in custody, and found special circumstances justifying a nine-month non-parole period because this was effectively the offender's...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to full-time imprisonment for a total term of one year and four months, with a non-parole period of nine months and special circumstances found.

Orders

  • ['Themistoklis Demis Kalathas is convicted.' 'The offender is sentenced to imprisonment.' 'A non-parole period of nine months is set, commencing on 24 August 2021 and expiring on 23 May 2022.' 'A further period of imprisonment of seven months is imposed, commencing upon the expiration of the non-parole period and...