Director of Public Prosecutions v Stewart

[2016] VCC 1342

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 14-02010

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

NICOLE STEWART
ALMIR DZAFIC

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MAIDMENT
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 September 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Stewart
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VCC 1342

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr N. Hutton
For Accused Stewart	Mr L. Barker
For Accused Dzafic	Mr M. McGrath

HIS HONOUR:

1Nicole Stewart and Almir Dzafic, you can stay seated for the time being.  You have heard what I have said about these offences.  You have each pleaded guilty to an indictment charging you with attempting to pervert the course of justice.  That offence is always a serious offence and generally requires a term of imprisonment, a substantial term of imprisonment, and for good reason because it is very much in the interests of justice that people are deterred from committing offences of this kind.

2It strikes at the administration of justice and it is important that the message goes out that ordinarily offences of that kind are visited with substantial terms of imprisonment.  Neither of you have any prior convictions and that is very much in your favour.  Both of you have pleaded guilty.

3The prosecution has tendered and relied upon an outline of submissions for sentencing indications, a summary of prosecution opening for sentencing indication, and I incorporate that document into these reasons for sentence.

4I am not going to go through that again.  Both of you participated in a joint venture with Michael Murray and there is I think a need for recognition that in the case of each of you you have pleaded guilty to this serious offence in circumstances where you each had a reasonable prospect of being acquitted, that there were some real question marks over the credibility of the principal prosecution witness, and therefore the value of your plea of guilty is to be given significance.

5I have endeavoured to do that by indicating that I do not propose to sentence either of you to a term of imprisonment requiring you to serve any further time.  Neither of you have prior convictions.  Both of you I think have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

6In your case, Ms Stewart, I would regard your prospects of rehabilitation as very good and I would not regard you as being a serious risk of re-offending.  In your case, Mr Dzafic, I am prepared to accept that you have good prospects of staying out of trouble in the future and that the overall sentence can reflect that fact.

7It is necessary for the court to mark the seriousness of the offence in a suitable way to denounce conduct of this kind, to deter each of you from further conduct of this kind, and particularly to deter others.  For that reason I propose to fine each of you, and in your case Mr Dzafic, to impose a term of imprisonment but limit that to the time you have already served so that you will not be required to serve any more time.

8Clearly I need to observe the principle of parity with the sentence already imposed upon Mr Murray.  I sentenced him to 68 days' imprisonment, which was time served in his case plus a fine for this offence of $9000.

9In your case, Ms Stewart, paying attention to that principle of parity, I convict you of the offence and sentence you to a fine of $3000.  I will come back to giving you time to pay that.  In your case, Mr Dzafic, I convict you and sentence you to six days' imprisonment.  I declare six days pre-sentence detention as time to be reckoned as served on the sentence that I have imposed and to be deducted administratively, which means you will not have to serve any more time.  I order that you pay a fine of $6000.

10In your case, Ms Stewart, I do not propose to make an order under s.464ZF of the Crimes Act. In your case, Mr Dzafic, it seems to me appropriate, having regard to the greater role that you played in this offending conduct and I do propose to make that order. I regard it as being in the interests of justice that that order be made.

11But for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you, Ms Stewart, to a term of imprisonment of six months, and in your case, Mr Dzafic, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of ten months.

12MR BARKER:  Your Honour, in terms of that fine I would ask for a stay of six months, sir.  My client is a single mother as you know and her finances are limited.

13HIS HONOUR:  Yes, six months granted.

14MR McGRATH:  I would ask for the same, Your Honour.

15HIS HONOUR:  Yes, six months in Mr Dzafic's case.  Each of you have six months to pay those fines.  Mr Dzafic, in respect of the order for you to provide a forensic sample you will be required to report to the Dandenong Police Station during the period specified in the order and they will be requested to provide a scraping from the inside of your mouth.

16If you do that that is the end of the matter.  If you fail or refuse to do that when requested then the authorised officer will be authorised to take blood from you and may use reasonable force.  I am quite sure you will not put them to that trouble.  Those orders are signed, Mr Hutton.  Thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑