Louizos v R, R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71

Louizos v R, R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71

The Court held the conviction appeal should be dismissed as the telephone intercepts were rightly admitted, there was no miscarriage of justice in not giving a Jones v Dunkel direction, and the verdict was open to the jury. The Crown appeal was allowed as the trial judge erred by treating motive as mitigating and failing to properly apply the standard non-parole period, rendering the sentence manifestly inadequate. The appellant was resentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and balance of 3 years 6 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Crown Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment (appeal Against Conviction and Sentence)
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed and new sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
['solicit to Murder' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'jones V Dunkel Direction' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'crown Appeals' 'objective Seriousness' 'mitigation and Aggravation' 'reasonableness of Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['solicit to Murder' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'jones V Dunkel Direction' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'crown Appeals' 'objective Seriousness' 'mitigation and Aggravation' 'reasonableness of Verdict']

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 Appeal and Crown Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment (appeal Against Conviction and Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of telephone intercepts was wrongly admitted' 'Whether failure to give a Jones v Dunkel direction resulted in miscarriage of justice' 'Whether verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and if the standard non-parole period should have applied']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the conviction appeal should be dismissed as the telephone intercepts were rightly admitted, there was no miscarriage of justice in not giving a Jones v Dunkel direction, and the verdict was open to the jury. The Crown appeal was allowed as the trial judge erred by treating motive as mitigating and failing to properly apply the standard non-parole period, rendering the sentence manifestly inadequate. The appellant was resentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years and balance of 3 years 6 months.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed and new sentence imposed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'Crown appeal against sentence is allowed.' 'District Court sentence is quashed.' 'In lieu, appellant is sentenced to imprisonment: non-parole period of 10 years, balance of 3 years 6 months, commencing 25 September 2008, eligible for release on 24 September 2018.']