Hafner v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 190


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0294

DARREN JOHN HAFNER

Appellant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

---

JUDGES:

BUCHANAN, BONGIORNO and OSBORN JJA

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATES OF HEARING:

16 August 2012

DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:

16 August 2012

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2012] VSCA 190

JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:

Unreported (County Court of Victoria, Judge Gaynor, Date of Sentence 3 November 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug offences, conspiracy to defraud and passport offences – Parity – Different sentences justified by differences in roles and criminal records of offenders – Non-parole period excessive – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr D A Dann Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Crown Mr B F Kissane Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

  1. The appellant was arraigned in the County Court on two presentments and one indictment containing one count of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of amphetamine, one count of trafficking in MDMA, one charge of conspiracy to damage an Australian travel document and one charge of conspiracy to make a false foreign passport.

  1. After a plea, the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 5 years on the count of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, for a term of 7 years on the count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of amphetamine, for a term of 3 years on the count of trafficking in MDMA, for a term of 2 years on the charge of conspiracy to damage an Australian travel document and for a term of 2 years on the charge of conspiracy to make a false foreign passport.  With a measure of cumulation, a total effective sentence of 9 years and 6 months was produced.  A minimum term of 8 years and 6 months was fixed.

  1. The facts constituting the conspiracy to defraud were that the appellant entered into an agreement with Biljana Jorgiovski, his de facto wife, Craig Wheeler, Saleh Khoder and Peter Hosri to obtain and use stolen credit card details to purchase goods.  Khoder, Wheeler and Hosri gained access to these details through their employment and supplied them to the appellant.  The appellant, in turn, used the credit card numbers to purchase goods and services, amounting to a total value of $15,769.  In addition, the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a further $12,272 worth of goods.  Over the same period, Jorgiovski was supplied with credit card numbers by the appellant, which she used to pay for goods and services. 

  1. The offence of trafficking in amphetamine involved 600 grams of the drug.  The appellant was involved in arranging the purchase and on sale of the drug with the co-offenders John Sammut, Wheeler and Khoder and he was also alleged to have prepared amphetamine for use and sale.  The sentencing judge described the appellant as ‘the hub’ in the commission of the trafficking offences. 

  1. The offence of trafficking in MDMA was constituted by the supply…

Continue reading Hafner v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hafner v The Queen [2012] VSCA 190
Case
[2012] VSCA 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hafner v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple drug and passport offences and appealed against his sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appeal against the sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced, whereas the respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the appellant's criminal history.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence was disproportionate, considering the principle of parity in sentencing. The court considered the differences in roles and criminal records of the offenders involved in the conspiracy. The court also examined whether the non-parole period was excessive and whether there was a point of principle that required the sentence to be reduced.

The court concluded that the sentence was not excessive, and the differences in roles and criminal records justified different sentences. The court also found that there was no point of principle that required the sentence to be reduced. The court confirmed the sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 in indictment number XO3334733B, but reduced the non-parole period to nine years and six months. The court also declared that but for the plea of guilty, the appellant would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The forfeiture orders made in the Court below were confirmed.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, reduce the non-parole period, and confirm the forfeiture orders. The sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 in indictment number XO3334733B were to commence on 28 March 2016, and the sentences passed in the Court below on presentment number XO3334733A and indictment number XO3334733B were confirmed. The court declared that but for the plea of guilty, the appellant would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of nine years and six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 in indictment number XO3334733B are to commence on 28 March 2016. Otherwise the sentences passed in the Court below on presentment number XO3334733A and indictment number XO3334733B are confirmed.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, it is declared that but for the plea of guilty, the appellant would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of nine years and six months.

4. The forfeiture orders made in the Court below are confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.