DPP v Con Kostakidis [2010] NSWLC 20

DPP v Con Kostakidis [2010] NSWLC 20

Despite the seriousness of giving false evidence and the principle that custodial sentences are generally warranted for such offences, in this case the combination of early guilty plea, significant assistance to authorities, demonstrated rehabilitation, lack of aggravating factors, and prosecutorial delay justified a substantial discount and the imposition of a supervised good behaviour bond rather than imprisonment.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Offender: Con Kostakidis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Offender convicted on all counts; released on good behaviour bond for two years under supervision under Section 9 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Legal Topics
False Evidence, Police Integrity Commission, Sentencing, Mitigating Factors, Delay in Prosecution
Criminal Law False Evidence Police Integrity Commission Sentencing Mitigating Factors Delay in Prosecution

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Con Kostakidis

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate penalty for giving false evidence before the Police Integrity Commission
  2. 2 Application of mitigating factors, including early guilty plea, assistance to authorities, and delay on part of prosecution
  3. 3 Whether custodial sentence is necessary in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the seriousness of giving false evidence and the principle that custodial sentences are generally warranted for such offences, in this case the combination of early guilty plea, significant assistance to authorities, demonstrated rehabilitation, lack of aggravating factors, and prosecutorial delay justified a substantial discount and the imposition of a supervised good behaviour bond rather than imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on all counts; released on good behaviour bond for two years under supervision under Section 9 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders

  • Conviction entered on each offence.
  • Offender released pursuant to Section 9 of the Act to be of good behaviour for two years from date of sentence, and to appear before the Court for sentence if called upon during that period.