Legal Research
Cases
Cedic v The Queen

Cedic v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 258 31 August 2011

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0899

NORMIN CEDIC	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN, ASHLEY and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	14 June 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	31 August 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 258
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Cedic [2009] VCC 1834 (Judge Chettle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – One count of intentionally causing serious injury – Two summary charges of failure to answer bail – Appellant sentenced to total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five years and six months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether insufficient weight given to early plea of guilty – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G M Hughan	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Tate JA.

ASHLEY JA:

I agree with Tate JA.

TATE JA:

On 4 October 2008, Normin Cedic (‘the appellant’) violently assaulted Peter Chard, resulting in Mr Chard’s hospitalisation. This led to the appellant’s arrest. He was charged with intentionally causing serious injury to which he pleaded guilty and for which he was convicted and sentenced. He also pleaded guilty to two summary charges of failing to answer bail. He was sentenced as follows:

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

Intentionally causing serious injury
[s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958] 20 years 7 years Base

Fail to answer bail
[s 30(1) of the Bail Act 1977] 12 months 3 months Nil

Fail to answer bail
[s 30(1) of the Bail Act 1977] 12 months 6 months 6 months

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years 6 months

Non-Parole Period: 5 years 6 months

Pre-sentence detention declared: 189 days

6AAA Statement: The sentence that would have been imposed if the appellant had not pleaded guilty and had been convicted of this offence after trial would have been 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

He now appeals his sentence to this Court, having previously been granted leave to appeal.

Circumstances of the offending

The appellant and his partner were at home with her 17-year-old son, three of his friends, her 16-year-old daughter and the daughter’s boyfriend.

At approximately 10:00pm, an argument broke out between the appellant and his partner. The appellant had been drinking alcohol all day. His partner asked her son to call for assistance from the partner’s former boyfriend, Mr Chard, because she was a bit scared. Mr Chard arrived sometime between 10:45pm and 11:40pm. Mr Chard was let into the house by the appellant. He walked down to the back of the house where he found the appellant’s partner with her children and their friends. He noted that the appellant’s partner looked very upset and he tried to comfort her.

Mr Chard was sitting on the floor with his legs crossed facing the appellant’s partner and his back was facing the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cedic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cedic v The Queen [2011] VSCA 258
Case: [2011] VSCA 258
Decision Date: 31 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cedic, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for one count of intentionally causing serious injury and two summary charges of failure to answer bail. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether insufficient weight was given to the appellant's early plea of guilty.

In addressing the first issue, the court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar offences. The court also noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences. Concerning the second issue, the court found that the primary judge had given adequate weight to the appellant's early plea of guilty. The court observed that the discount applied for the plea was consistent with the principles set out in relevant authorities.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The appellant's conviction and sentence for one count of intentionally causing serious injury and two summary charges of failure to answer bail remain in place.

Orders