DPP v Jovicic - [2001] VSCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 371 of 2000
No. 372 of 2000

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ROBERT JOVICIC and

DRAGAN JOVICIC

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	BALLARAT
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 March 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 43

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Burglary – Crown appeal – Principles applicable – Offenders with long criminal histories pleading guilty to four burglaries – Principal offender sentenced to 5 years for multiple offences – Parity – General and specific deterrence – Rehabilitation – Necessity for cumulation – Total effective sentences of 2 years’ imprisonment manifestly inadequate – Appeal allowed – Respondents resentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.

P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Respondent
Robert Jovicic

For the Respondent
Dragan Jovicic

Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C.

Mr. O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.

Clarebrough Pica

WINNEKE, P.:

I invite Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 25 September 2000, the respondents, Dragan Jovicic, who was born on 19 March 1963, and Robert Jovicic, who was born on 4 December 1966, were presented at the County Court at Melbourne, together with George Bond, Marco Scalpelli and John Veglianti, and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing in relation to each respondent four counts of burglary with intent to steal and four separate counts of theft, the offences of the respondents being quite unrelated. Dragan Jovecic was also charged with three other offences, one of which was that he had dishonestly handled stolen goods. George Bond was presented on one count of burglary with intent to steal and one count of theft, John Veglianti on one count of conspiracy to handle stolen goods, one count of cultivating a narcotic plant and one count of possessing cannabis L, and Marco Scalpelli on one count of conspiracy to handle stolen goods.

Dragan Jovicic had 108 prior convictions from 15 court appearances between 1 May 1980 and 12 June 1998. Most of these convictions were for offences of dishonesty, including burglary, theft, handling stolen goods and obtaining property by deception. Robert Jovicic had 158 previous offences or convictions from 10 court appearances between 4 June 1984 and 31 May 1995. Most of these were for offences of dishonesty, including burglary, theft and handling stolen goods. Dragan Jovicic's prior convictions included 32 prior convictions for burglary, 22 convictions for theft and 23 counts of obtaining property by deception. Robert Jovicic had 52 prior offences of burglary, 63 of theft, and other convictions

for attempted burglary, receiving, going equipped to steal and possession of property suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained.

After a plea in mitigation, in which evidence was given on behalf of Dragan Jovicic by his wife Melissa, Mrs Mary Harris and the Reverend David Boehm, and various supporting references were tendered, and three letters were tendered in support of Robert Jovicic, the judge sentenced…

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 Jovicic

Details

AGLC: DPP v Jovicic [2001] VSCA 43
Case: [2001] VSCA 43
Decision Date: 22 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Jovicic, the matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondents, Jovicic and his associates, were convicted of four burglaries, to which they pleaded guilty. The Crown appealed against the sentences handed down by the lower courts, which had been deemed manifestly inadequate by the Crown. The appeal centred on the appropriateness of the sentences given the respondents' criminal histories and the need for effective deterrence and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the principles guiding the sentencing of offenders with extensive criminal records who plead guilty to multiple offences. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed were sufficient to achieve the objectives of general and specific deterrence, as well as the rehabilitation of the offenders. The court also had to consider the necessity of cumulating sentences and whether the total effective sentences of two years' imprisonment were adequate in the circumstances. The respondents argued that the sentences were proportionate and appropriate given their guilty pleas and the need for rehabilitation.

The High Court, in allowing the Crown's appeal, found that the total effective sentences of two years' imprisonment were manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the importance of parity in sentencing, general and specific deterrence, and the need for effective rehabilitation. The court held that given the respondents' extensive criminal histories and the nature of the offences, a higher degree of cumulation was necessary to achieve the desired sentencing objectives. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the respondents be resentenced, ensuring that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the respondents be resentenced to reflect the proper application of sentencing principles, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence, the necessity for cumulation, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality and adequacy in sentencing, particularly in cases involving offenders with significant criminal histories.

Orders