Legal Research
Cases
Jojic v The Queen

Jojic v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 77 30 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0090

JOVAN JOJIC	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN and PRIEST JJA and KIDD AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 77
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jojic (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Jordan, 22 April 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Procedural fairness – Submission by prosecutor and defence counsel that CCO ‘open’ – No CCO assessment ordered – Whether defence counsel aware that judge was not going to order a CCO – Judge made clear his intended sentencing approach before sentencing – Appellant given fair opportunity to address relevant matters.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Manifest excess – Effect of ‘dead time’ – Effect of delay – Duration of non-parole period – Manifest excess not demonstrated.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant:	Mr J Gullaci	C Marshall & Associates
For the Crown:	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

OSBORN JA:

On 27 December 2012, the appellant went to a house where a school friend, Vernon, lived together with Vernon’s girlfriend. The three sat in the lounge room and smoked methamphetamine (‘ice’).

After time progressed, the appellant went to the toilet. When he returned to the lounge room, he accused his companions of smoking his ice. They denied that they had done this but the appellant became angry. The appellant then left the premises and drove away but returned a short time later. He demanded to know who had smoked his ice and took out a knife with a 15 centimetre blade. Both Vernon and his girlfriend denied smoking the appellant’s ice. The appellant then began a countdown from three, and, on completing the countdown, jumped on Vernon and stabbed him some 20 times causing serious injuries.

Colour photographs of Vernon’s wounds show injuries to his left and right arms, left leg, upper torso and neck. The wound to the neck was a deep stab wound penetrating to the spine. Another wound penetrated the left arm, severing an artery. Another penetrated one of his lungs. As Priest JA observed on the leave application in this matter, the victim was fortunate that he did not lose his life.[1]
[1]Jojic v The Queen (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Priest, 31 August 2016) [4].

In turn, Vernon’s victim impact statement records serious ongoing physical and psychological consequences.

The appellant was initially charged with intentionally cause serious injury but on 15 March 2016, following pre-trial argument about the admissibility of hospital records containing alleged admissions made by the appellant in a paranoid psychotic state, the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to recklessly cause serious injury. The plea was accepted by the prosecution on the basis that the appellant was probably in a drug-induced psychotic state at the time of the stabbing.

Following a plea hearing on 21 and 22 April 2016, Judge Jordan sentenced 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 Jojic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jovan Jojic v The Queen [2017] VSCA 77
Case: [2017] VSCA 77
Decision Date: 30 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jojic v The Queen, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence on several grounds, with the primary contention being that the proceedings were not fair due to a failure to order a comprehensive case overview (CCO). The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have ordered a CCO because both the prosecutor and defence counsel submitted that the CCO was 'open', and the appellant was not aware that the judge was not going to order a CCO. He further argued that this failure deprived him of a fair opportunity to address relevant matters during sentencing.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness due to the lack of a CCO, and if the sentence imposed constituted a manifest excess. The court had to consider whether the defence counsel was adequately aware of the judge's intended sentencing approach and if the appellant was given a fair opportunity to address relevant matters. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was a manifest excess of judicial discretion, taking into account the effect of 'dead time' and the duration of the non-parole period.

The court found that the trial judge had made clear his intended sentencing approach before imposing sentence, and the appellant was given a fair opportunity to address relevant matters. The court also concluded that the effect of 'dead time' and the delay did not constitute a manifest excess of judicial discretion. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders