Dating someone with congenital hypothyroidism
Whether sentence excessive - whether sufficient weight given to appellant's youth - parity. Sentence appeal allowed: resentenced to 20y with NPP of 16y.
LYKOURAS, Paul - CCA, 4.2.2005Sully, Hidden & Howie JJCitation: R v Lykouras  NSWCCA 8Application for leave to appeal against interlocutory order granting leave to the Crown to amend an indictment under s.20 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and Crown appeal against order for separate trials.
Whether leave to amend indictment should have been granted - if so, whether separate trials should have been ordered.
Leave to appeal against order granting leave to the Crown to amend the indictment granted but appeal refused.
Maliciously wounding with intent to do GBH.11y with a NPP of 8y 3m.
The above offence involved an unprovoked, vicious attack upon the victim, as a result of which the victim suffered very serious injuries.
Apart from the above count, applicant had also been charged with wound with intent to murder, however, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on that count.
Whether error in assessing future dangerousness - under the influence of Temazepam & alcohol at the time of offending - whether error in failure to give any or sufficient weight to subjective circumstances - whether error in weight given to use of weapon - finding of 'gratuitous cruelty'- whether sentence manifestly excessive. NICHOLLS and COATES - HCA, 3.2.2005 219 CLR 196; 79 ALJR 468Citation: Nicholls v The Queen; Coates v The Queen  HCA 1On appeal from the SC of WA.
The accused was committed for trial to the DC on an indictment containing a single count under s.52A(3)(a).Applicant assaulted his stepfather because of an allegation that he had sexually assaulted the applicant's sister when she was 9 years old.During the assault, applicant at one time armed himself with a mattock & at another time with an axe.Appellants were convicted of the wilful murder of a female prostitute who intended giving evidence against them in future criminal proceedings.
The Crown case was based primarily upon the co-offender, who received a reduced sentence in return for assistance.
The co-offender made a separate trial application, which was granted, & his re-trial was fixed for the following day.