Elezi v The King - [2025] VSCA 81

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0183

ARBEN ELEZI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BOYCE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 81
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Elezi [2024] VCC 1362 (Judge Dawes)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A
SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Cultivation of not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis – Cultivation of cannabis – Possession of cannabis – Theft of electricity – Total effective sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months – Whether reasonably arguable that individual sentences on charges 1 and 2, total effective sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable that sentences manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Vocaj v The King [2023] VSCA 242; Le v The Queen [2021] VSCA 220; Dang v The Queen [2020] VSCA 24; Nguyen v The Queen (2021) 301 A Crim R 1, discussed.

---

Counsel for written submissions
Applicants:		Ms F Fox
Respondent:		Ms K Curry-Hyde (solicitor)
Solicitors
Applicants:	Ellinghaus Weill Lawyers & Consultants
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was sentenced for having committed the offences of cultivation of not less than a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, cultivation of a narcotic plant, theft, and possession of a drug of dependence, namely cannabis. He pleaded guilty. The applicant was sentenced in the County Court on 29 August 2024 as follows.

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

Indictment N10921631.1

1 Cultivation of narcotic plants – commercial quantity (namely Cannabis L)[1] 25 years 3 years and 6 months Base

2 Cultivation of narcotic plants, (namely Cannabis L)[2] 15 years 1 year and 6 months 6 months

3 Theft[3] 10 years 4 months 2 months

4 Theft[4] 10 years 6 months 4 months

5 Possession of a drug of dependence (namely Cannabis L)[5] 5 years and/or 400 penalty units 6 months Concurrent

Total Effective Sentence: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 2 years and 8 months

Pre-Sentence Detention Declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991: 80 days

Section 6AAA Statement: 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years

Other Relevant Orders: Property forfeiture order
[1]Contrary to s 72A of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘Drugs Act’).
[2]Contrary to s 72B of the Drugs Act.
[3]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[4]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[5]Contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs Act.

The applicant has one proposed ground of appeal. It is expressed in the following terms.
Ground 1: The individual sentences on charges…

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 Elezi v The King

Details

AGLC: Elezi v The King [2025] VSCA 81
Case: [2025] VSCA 81
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Elezi v The King, the applicant, Elezi, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, which was determined by a single judge under section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The applicant was convicted of cultivating not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis, cultivating cannabis, possessing cannabis, and stealing electricity. He was sentenced to a total effective term of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months. The applicant contended that the individual sentences on charges 1 and 2, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was reasonably arguable that the individual sentences on charges 1 and 2, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive. The court considered the relevant authorities, including Vocaj v The King, Le v The Queen, Dang v The Queen, and Nguyen v The Queen, to determine if the applicant's arguments had sufficient merit to warrant leave to appeal. The court examined the principles of sentencing and proportionality, weighing the seriousness of the offences against the applicant's personal circumstances and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

After considering the arguments and authorities, the court found that it was not reasonably arguable that the individual sentences on charges 1 and 2, the total effective sentence, or the non-parole period were manifestly excessive. The court was satisfied that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the applicant's personal circumstances. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders