DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke - [2004] VSC 158

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1497 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SUDO CAVKIC, COSTAS ATHANASI AND JULIAN MICHAEL CLARKE

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING::	9 February 2004 – 5 April 2004; 19 April, 10 May 2004.
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 May 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi and Clarke
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 158

---

SENTENCE

Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Execution killing – Counselling and procuring – Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr C. Hillman, SC with Ms G. Cannon	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Sudo Cavkic	Mr D. Drake	Victoria Legal Aid
For Costas Athanasi	Mr D. Allen with Mr T. Kassimatis	Clarkson and Socio
For Julian Michael Clarke	Mr D. Wraith	Vines

_____________________________________

HIS HONOUR:

Sudo Cavkic, Costas Athanasi and Julian Michael Clarke, after a seven week trial each of you has been convicted by a jury of the murder in Victoria but at a place unknown on or about Sunday, 28 May 2000 of Keith William Allan. The murder was a paid execution. It was planned, deliberate, methodical and cold-blooded. It was you, Mr Cavkic, who killed Mr Allan. It was you, Mr Athanasi, who arranged it. And it was you, Mr Clarke who planned it and for whose benefit the murder was committed. The murder was for money. You, Mr Cavkic, killed the deceased for money; you, Mr Athanasi, arranged the killing for money; and you, Mr Clarke, conceived and set in train the killing in order to deflect from yourself blame for thefts you had been committing on the trust account of the practice of Mr Allan, a solicitor.

Those bare facts place this killing in the worst category of murder.

You Mr Clarke, were Mr Allan's trusted employee. You were his law clerk. He was a solicitor, practising primarily at Avondale Heights. When the solicitors' regulatory body, Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd, was closing in on the solicitor's practice in an investigation of its affairs, which investigation imminently would reveal your extensive thefts, Mr Clarke, you arranged for the murder of your employer so that, with him forever silenced, you could divert blame for the thefts from yourself to the dead solicitor. You then spun a web of manipulation and deceit seeking to hide the murder and your causal role in it. You were brought undone by good police work. So too were you, Mr Cavkic and Mr Athanasi.

This crime, already as I have stated in the worse category of murder, possesses a further exacerbating factor. Each of you was convicted by the jury of the murder of the deceased "at a place unknown". The charge was so expressed because the body of the deceased has never been found. From Monday, 29 May 2000, day after day, week after week, year after year the loved ones of the deceased by not only your actions but by your silence have…

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 DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Cavkic, Athanasi and Clarke [2004] VSC 158
Case: [2004] VSC 158
Decision Date: 10 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke, the defendants were convicted of their involvement in the execution-style killing of a man in Melbourne. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution sought a sentence for the defendants, who were found guilty of murder, including counselling and procuring the crime.

The legal issues that the court had to decide upon involved the appropriate sentence for the defendants, given the nature of their crime and their roles in it. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the level of culpability of each defendant, and the principles of sentencing for such serious crimes. The court was required to balance these factors in determining a just and proportionate sentence.

In its reasoning, the court noted the heinous nature of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victim and his family. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for such serious crimes. The court also considered the individual culpability of each defendant, taking into account their roles in the planning and execution of the crime. After weighing these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentences for the defendants were lengthy terms of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of their crimes and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants be sentenced to imprisonment for terms that reflected the gravity of their crimes, with the specific terms varying according to their individual levels of culpability. The sentences were designed to ensure that the defendants would be held accountable for their roles in this heinous crime, and to provide appropriate deterrence and denunciation in line with the principles of justice.

Orders