R v Alexandridis

[2008] VSCA 126

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Plea in mitigation
4. › Procedural fairness
5. › Unrepresented accused
6. › Whether sentencing judge obliged to inform unrepresented accused of right to give sworn evidence on disputed mitigating facts
7. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Mitigating circumstances
4. › Provocation
5. › Whether victim's provocative conduct ceases to have mitigatory significance because of time gap between provocation and assault
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal
4. › Consequences of denial of procedural fairness on plea
5. › Whether matter should be remitted for resentencing
6. › Whether relief refused as futile

Quick Take

A sentencing judge must inform an unrepresented accused that they may give sworn evidence to establish disputed mitigating facts, and must inform them that they bear the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. Provocation by a victim does not necessarily cease to have mitigatory significance because of a time gap between the provocative act and the offending. Where procedural fairness is denied on a plea, the matter will be remitted for resentencing unless the same outcome is inevitable.