Legal Research
Cases
Djordjic v The Queen

Djordjic v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 227 6 September 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0246

VLADIMIR DJORDJIC	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, BEACH and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 August 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 227
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Djordjic (Unreported, 30 October 2017, County Court of Victoria, Judge Campton)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Guilty plea – Two charges of trafficking large commercial quantity of drug of dependence – Charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime – Whether judge erred in treating charge of trafficking two substances as rolled-up charge – Cumulation of sentences – Applicant a serious offender under s 6E of Sentencing Act 1991 – Form of sentence – Sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment trafficking charge involving 4.2 kgs of substances – Total effective sentence 19 years 6 months – Whether manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Dribbin & Brown
For the Respondent	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

I have read in draft the reasons of Beach and Kaye JJA, with which I agree. I understood the argument being advanced in support of proposed ground 2 differently to the way the argument was understood by Beach and Kaye JJA. The difference may be a matter of form rather than substance, but I find it necessary to articulate the way I understood the argument and the reasons why I have not accepted it. I also wish to make some additional observations on proposed grounds 3 and 4. These reasons assume knowledge of the reasons of Beach and Kaye JJA.

Proposed ground 2

The fundamental proposition of the applicant in relation to proposed ground 2, as I understood it, was that the proper construction of s 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 leads to the conclusion that a sentence to which it applies cannot be the base sentence. This is because s 6E provides that a sentence to which it applies must be served cumulatively ‘on’ any other uncompleted sentence. The submission was that this was what this Court had held in Barbat v The Queen.[1] As I understood it, the applicant also submitted that in this particular case that conclusion meant that the base sentence had to be the sentence imposed on charge 1. It was said that this was because in SJ v The Queen[2] this Court had held that, in circumstances where provisions such as s 6E applied, offenders should be sentenced in accordance with the chronological order of the charges on the indictment.
[1][2014] VSCA 202 (‘Barbat’).
[2][2012] VSCA 237 ― I am unpersuaded that the applicant’s interpretation of this judgment is necessarily correct, but it is unnecessary to decide that in this application.

Beach and Kaye JJA have set out the factual circumstances addressed by the Court in Barbat. The conclusions of the two…

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 Djordjic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Djordjic v The Queen [2018] VSCA 227
Case: [2018] VSCA 227
Decision Date: 6 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Mr Djordjic, was found guilty of two counts of trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence and one count of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. The dispute arose following a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for the trafficking charge and a total effective sentence of 19 years and 6 months. The applicant argued that the judge erred in treating the two trafficking charges as a single "rolled-up" charge and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in treating the two trafficking charges as a single charge and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the judge appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence.

The court determined that the trial judge did not err in treating the two trafficking charges as a single charge because the applicant trafficked both substances simultaneously and the charges arose out of the same criminal conduct. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct. The court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range and adequately reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found no error in the sentencing process and upheld the total effective sentence of 19 years and 6 months, with 15 years' imprisonment for the trafficking charge.

Orders