Legal Research
Cases
Dordevic v The Queen

Dordevic v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 166 18 July 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCR 2016 0043

SLOBODAN DORDEVIC	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 July 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 July 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 166
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Dordevic (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wilmoth, 27 November 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW —Appeal — Sentence —Trafficking in methylamphetamine and other offences — Appellant with low IQ — Whether judge failed to apply Verdins principles —Whether sentence manifestly excessive as a result — Sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment with two year CCO — Whether error in failing to impose non-parole period — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A J Patton	Valos Black & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr B F Kissane QC	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA:

Sentences and grounds of appeal

Pursuant to leave granted by Maxwell P on 27 May 2016, the appellant appeals against a sentence imposed in the County Court on 27 November 2015 on three grounds:

1. The total effective sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in that the sentencing judge failed to impose sentences in accordance with the principles in Verdins.
1A. The sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the Verdin’s (sic) principles raised in the written plea submissions which had been filed and relied upon by Counsel for the applicant during the oral plea hearing, other than Verdin’s (sic) principle 1;
—the sentencing judge erred in considering only the issue of moral culpability in applying the Verdin’s (sic) principles;
—the sentencing judge erred in failing to address principles of general and specific deterrence and the question of whether prison would be more burdensome for the applicant in accordance with the principles in Verdin’s (sic) case.

2. The Sentencing Judge erred in failing to impose a minimum non parole period in all the circumstances.

The appellant was sentenced according to the following table:

Charge Offence Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking in a drug of dependence[1] (methylamphetamine) 18 months Base

2 Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cocaine) 15 months 2 months

3 Prohibited person possessing a firearm[2] 9 months 1 month

4 Prohibited person possessing a firearm 9 months -

5 Prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm[3] 3 months -
[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 71AC. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Firearms Act 1996, s 5(1). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment (or 1200 penalty units).
[3]Control of Weapons Act 1990, s 5AB(2). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment (or 1200 penalty units).

Charge	Offence	Sentence	Cumulation
6	Store firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicensed[4]	4 months	-
7	Knowingly possess counterfeit money[5]	1 month	-
Summary offences
9	Possess prohibited weapons without exemption or approval[6]	6 months	-
10	Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime[7]	6 months	1 month
12	Contravene personal safety intervention…

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 Dordevic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dordevic v The Queen [2016] VSCA 166
Case: [2016] VSCA 166
Decision Date: 18 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dordevic v The Queen involved the appellant, Dordevic, appealing his sentence for trafficking in methylamphetamine and other related offences. Dordevic, who has a low IQ, argued that the trial judge had failed to properly apply the principles established in Verdins, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the Verdins principles in sentencing Dordevic and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also considered if there was an error in the judge's failure to impose a non-parole period.

The court examined the principles laid out in Verdins, which require that the sentence of a person with impaired cognitive functioning be appropriately adjusted. The High Court found that the trial judge had considered Dordevic's intellectual impairment and its impact on his offending behaviour. The court concluded that the judge had appropriately applied the Verdins principles and that the sentence of 23 months' imprisonment with a two-year community correction order was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the original sentence. The High Court found no error in the judge's decision not to impose a non-parole period, given the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders