Jasmin Destanovic v The Queen

In the case of Jasmin Destanovic v The Queen, the High Court of Australia reviewed the conviction and sentencing of four individuals involved in an armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and the intentional infliction of serious injury. The joint trial of the four accused, D1, D2, D3, and D4, resulted in D1’s conviction being quashed and a retrial ordered, while D2’s conviction was affirmed as safe and satisfactory. The central issues before the court were whether the additional evidence admissible against D2 and D3, but not against D1, improperly influenced the jury’s perception of the victim’s credibility and whether the judge’s endorsement of this influenced breached the requirement for separate consideration of the evidence against each defendant.

The court found that the additional evidence against D2 and D3 did not unduly influence the jury’s view of the victim’s credibility in a way that prejudiced D1’s case. However, the prosecutor’s invitation to the jury to view the victim's credibility as enhanced and to reason from the acceptance of inadmissible evidence against D1 to finding him guilty, coupled with the judge’s endorsement of this approach, did breach the separate consideration requirement. This breach led to the quashing of D1’s conviction and the ordering of a retrial. In contrast, the court determined that the additional evidence did not render D2’s conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory, affirming the conviction against him.

The High Court also considered the sentence imposed on the appellants, totalling 8 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. The court held that the delay of 5 years between the offending and sentencing did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The sentence was within the appropriate range for such offences, and thus, the leave to appeal the sentence was refused. The court concluded that the sentence was not excessive and that the delay did not justify a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of D1’s conviction and the ordering of a retrial, while D2’s conviction was affirmed. The sentence for the appellants was upheld, and the leave to appeal the sentence was refused.