Ilic v Tasmania - [2009] TASSC 94

[2009] TASSC 94

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Ilic v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 94

PARTIES:  ILIC, Branimir
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

FILE NO/S:  231/2009
DELIVERED ON:  16 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10 September 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Tennent and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Response to charges – Co-operation with police or assistance to authorities – Generally – Early pleas of guilty.

Dennison v The State of Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 50; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3274]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  P Barker
             Respondent:  J Hartnett
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  PWB Lawyers
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 94
Number of paragraphs: 29

Serial No 94/2009
File No 231/2009

BRANIMIR ILIC v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
TENNENT J
PORTER J
16 October 2009

Orders of the Court

That the appeal is allowed.
That the order made on 12 March 2009 pursuant to which the appellant was sentenced to serve a period of four years and six months' imprisonment with effect from 3 December 2008 with a non-parole period of two years and six months, is quashed.
In lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to three years' imprisonment with effect from 3 December 2008, with a non-parole period of two years.

Serial No 94/2009
File No 231/2009

BRANIMIR ILIC v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
16 October 2009

I generally agree with the reasons for judgment of Tennent J.

Having regard to the need for a sentencing discount in recognition of the early pleas of guilty, the information that was provided by the appellant to the police, and his undertaking to give evidence against two individuals, the sentence of imprisonment of four years six months was equivalent to one of imprisonment for at least five years six months and, very possibly, six years, if no such pleas, information and undertaking had been provided. That would have been a manifestly excessive sentence for the offences committed by the appellant. It follows that the sentence that was imposed was manifestly excessive.

I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the sentence quashed. I also agree that in its place the appellant should be sentenced to imprisonment for three years from 3 December 2008 and it should be ordered that he is not to be eligible for parole until he has served two years of the imprisonment.
File No 231/2009

BRANIMIR ILIC v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
16 October 2009

On 20 February 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty to 42 charges appearing on an indictment dated 6 February 2009 and on a number of complaints. The matters to which he pleaded were as follows:

Indictment
- Procuring unauthorised status contrary to the Criminal Code ("the…

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 Ilic v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Ilic v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 94
Case: [2009] TASSC 94
Decision Date: 16 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ilic v Tasmania is a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania that considered the principles applicable in sentencing for criminal offences. The applicant, Ilic, was charged with various drug-related offences. The matter proceeded to trial but was withdrawn by the applicant shortly before the case was to be heard by the court. Ilic subsequently entered pleas of guilty to all charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. Ilic sought to appeal the sentence imposed on him, arguing that the sentence was excessive and did not take into account relevant mitigating factors.

The legal issues in the case related to the principles that a court should consider when sentencing a defendant for criminal offences. The applicant argued that the trial judge failed to take into account his early pleas of guilty and his co-operation with the police in mitigating the sentence imposed. The applicant submitted that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced. The respondent, Tasmania, argued that the sentence was appropriate and took into account all relevant factors.

The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not err in the principles applied by the trial judge. The court found that while the applicant's early pleas of guilty and co-operation with the police were relevant mitigating factors, they did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The court found that the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders