1. On 18 December 2020, the appellant was sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the following offences:
(a)
Unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms, contrary to s 42(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Firearms Act) (CC2020/13742). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years. As the appellant had elected for the offence to be disposed of summarily in the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 375(10) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), the maximum penalty that could be imposed was imprisonment for 5 years (s 375(15)(a) of the Crimes Act).
(b)
Possession of ammunition, contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act (CC2019/8304). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 10 penalty units, $1,600.
(c)
Possession of offensive…
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 Kajevic v Noble
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kajevic v Noble [2021] ACTSC 67
Case
[2021] ACTSC 67
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Milan Kajevic, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrate for the offence of unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The court re-sentenced the appellant to a term of 22 months imprisonment, suspended after serving 6 months, upon the appellant entering into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 2 years. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's subjective circumstances, and current sentencing practice in reaching its decision. The court found that the original sentence was more than undoubtedly stern, it was manifestly excessive, and that the appeal court would have imposed a different sentence. The court concluded that the difference between the original sentence and the re-sentence bespeaks misapplication of principle, warranting appellate intervention.