Kovac, Zvonko John v The Queen

[1977] FCA 58

Appeal - severity of sentence - robbery in co6pzny. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - Section 2 4 ( 1 ) Jurisdiction - Section 28 - Principles upon which

appellate court will vary sentence.

'Zvonlto John Kovac v. Tile Q u e m

No. G4 o f 1977

Coranl: Bowen C.J., Smithers and Con:ior JJ.

Canberra, 1 September 1977.

I

i

l

!

I

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF - AUSl'RALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CA\PIT.qL TERRITORY	1 1	No.	4 o f 1 9 7 7
DTSTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1
1

-	ON APPEAL from t h c Supreme Court of thc
A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y
RETV!EEN : ZVONKO J O H N KOVAC

-Appellant

AND :	THE QUEEN
_.

Respondent

CORAM: BOlVEN C . J . SMITIERS and CONNOR J;.

1st September	1 9 7 7
J U D G M E N T

This i s an appeal by Zvonko John Kovac from a sentence

of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Supreme Colurt of t h e

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . I n A p r i l 1.977 he was sentenced

t o 15 months hard labour with a non-pa ro lc pe r iod o f 9 nlonths.

The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h i s s e n t e n c e

was too s eve re .

The cha rge b rough t aga ins t t hc appe l l an t was t h a t

I w h i l e i n company wi th a Inan named J u r k o v i c h e a s s a u l t e d a man

named Stern and robbed him of twenty capsules of d i ace ty lmorphme .

The charge was brought undcr S . 97 o f t h e New South Wales Crlmcs

Act	1 9 0 0	as	amended	i n	i t s	a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l
i - -

T e r r i t o r y . The s e c t i o n , i n combinat ion with 5 . 1 4 o f t h e Crimes

Ordinance 1 9 7 4 , p rovides a ~naximun~ p e n a l t y o f 1 4 years imprisonmcnt~ !

L

- 2 -

for the o f fence which i s s h o r t l y d e s c r l b c d as robbe ry i n

! compeny. b l r . J u rkov ic was charged wi th a similzr oEfcnce.

Both nlcn p l e a d e d g u i l t y i n t h e C o u r t o f Pe t ty 'Scss ions , Canber ra

and were commtted to the Supreme Court f o r s en tence . They came

I '

l	up	f o r s cn tence	t oge the r	be io rc	B lackburn	J.	and	were	r c p r e s c n t e d
l' i

by t h e same Counsel, who d i d n o t a p p e a r i n t h i s a p p e a l . bir .

J u r k o v i c r e c e i v e d t h e same s c n t e n c e a s t h c a p p c l l a n t b u t h a s

not appea led .

A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e Crown Prosccu to r , Flr. C a h i l i ,

informed the Court from t h e b a r t a b l e i n t h e u s u a l wa)- 3f t h e

Crown v e r s i o n of t he c i r cums tances o f t h e o f i e n c e . T h i s v e r s i o n

-

included an account of how J u r k o v i c , i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h c

appe l l an r , had on two occasions produced a Co l t . 4 5 p i s t o l and

I

I had t h r e a t e n e d M-. S t c r n w i t h i t . Counsel f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

and Jurkovic jn formed the l earned t r i a l J u d g e t h a t w h i l e h i s

i c l i e n t s d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e y had committed assault and

1	r o b b e r y ,	t h e y	d i d	d i s p u t e	t h a t	they	had	used	a	f i r e a r m .	A f t e r
i	l

d i scuss ion w i th Counse l , Ilis Honour a d j o u r n e d t h e i u r t h e r h e a r i n g

i

l

I	of	t h e m a t t e r	t o enable	the	Crown	t o c a l l	Mr.	S t e r n .
l
i

A t t he ad jou rned h sa r ing Mr. Stern gave sworn evidence

l

t h a t on (5th J u l y 197G he was l i v i n g a l o n e i n a rented house

i n hiawson, a sou the rn suburb o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y .

A t about 10.15 p.111. he opened the front dosi- in answer t o a ying

of t h e d o o r b e l l . He was a heroin addlct and bccausc of a

phone c o n v e r s a t i o n c a r l l e r i n the evening , he e x p e c t e d t h a t a

inan named Majors would be a; t h e door f o r the purpose o f

c o l l e c t i n g SOIIIC c a p s u l e s o f h e r o i n . J n s t c a d he found t h a t the

i

- 3 -

l appel lan t 2nd rlr. J u r k o v i c w r e t h e r e . They t o l d him they

had come for t he hc ro jn , Mr. Stern Loolc Lhem in to the lounge

room of hrs home. The appcl lan t , apparently wish= t o t e s t

t h e q u a l i t y o€ the hwoin , adminis te red s m e to himself wi th

a syringe provlcicd by Mr. S tc1-11 and at t h e s a m t i m e F'Lr. S t w r ?

-

administered some l ieroln to himself . Fol lowir ig this , I%-. S t e rn

vas r e l ax ing m an en? c h a i r w i t h his eyes cl.osed vhen he

! beczme a1-31~ that I k . Jurkovic hod placecl a handcuff or! hzs

r i g h t vrist. PP. Jurl io-ac thm informed him thak they ?':ere

I p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a?ld s h o r t l y afterwards handcuffed Stern' S

wrists toge ther . Vhen S te rn asked f o r v e s i f i c a t l o n o f t h e i r

i d e n t i t y as police, Jurltovlc produccd a .45 C o l t eutona-tic FJ s t a l

which he pcmtcd a t Mr. S t e r n ' s forehead. The qpe l l - an t t hen

aslced v~herc the r e s t of t he he ro ln was. S te rn s a id it was 111

mother house. A t about t h 3 S tlme the appel lan t searched thie

lounge roo.7) for d rugs . Jur lcovic s t ruck S tem across the fece

I

wi th en open hoad and t o l d Stern n o t t o lie. Jurltovlc pullcd

Stern by .lhc handcufrs t o the ground s o t h a t he was i n a

knee l ing pos l t i cn on t he f l oo r . The appel len t t o l d jurlrovlc

no t t o hit Stern because %e's goin:, t o t e l l u s where it is".

A conversation then ensued v!lich lzstecl for an hour

or more maln ta incd tha t i n the co'xse of 11hic11 the zppel lan t and Jurltovic

they were po l ice o f f icers . They t r i e d t o

persuade S te rn to g ive them t he name of the pcrson who was

supplying him mLh hcro jn . Durmg the course d f t h i s

c o ~ ~ v e r s a t ~ o n , ' t h e appcl lmr ; -!eft the house tvide on t h e p r e t e x t

, - 4 -

o f g o i n g o u t t o the p o l i c e c a r to check on names and

addres ses suqp l i ed t o him by S t e r n . S h o r t l y .before midnight

t h e y r e t u r n e d t o t h e t o p i c o f where t hc he ro in was. By this

t m e Stern said t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t arid Jur l tov ic had been in

the house € o r about one and a h a l f t o two hours and tha L dur lng

t h a t t i n e t h e a p p e l l a n t had s e a r c h e d r i g h t t h r o u g h %.he house

but had lio t found any drugs . He oa ld that both t h e a p p e l l a l i t

and Jurlrovic were becoming agltated as h e c o n t l n u e d t o r e f u s e

-to t e l l them where t h e h e r o n 1 was. A t t h a t stage, whi1.a he

vas s t i l l handcuffed, he s a d t h a t J u r k o v i c drew t h e gun a g z h

and t h r e a t e n e d t o s h o o t hlm. He then went with them t o t m

bedroom m-d took the hero in f rom vhere he had h ieden It 1n a

j a c k e t hanging i n a wardrobe. The appel lan t and Jur!covric took

twenty capsulcs of the hero in . Jurkovic then took S te rn b3ck

t o t h e j o i n them. 10ung:o room b u t the a p p e l l a n t d n o t , a t t h a t t ime ,

Jurltovlc removed The handcuf f s . A s h o r t t i m e I z r e r

t h e a p p e l l a n t came i n t o t h e lounge room z n d t o l d S t e r n t h a t h e

had hidden two c a p s u l e s of hcro in i n the house and t'nat i f he

( S t e r n ) d l d a n y t h i n g wrong they would come back end c!lzrge him 12 , ,

r e s p e c t o f this a t another t lme. The appe l l an t znd Ju rkov iz

t h e n l e f t t h e h o u s e .

In c r o s s - e x a n m a t i o n , S t e r n o g m e d t h a t he had seen

t h e a p p e l l a n t and Jurlcovic a t t n e l r h o u s e a b o u t h a 1 1 a dozen

t i m e s a f t e r t h e e v e n t s of Gt'n J u l y 39%. He h a d v o l u n t a r i l y

sough t and en joyed t he i r company ofi these occasibns and s a d t ha t

- 5 -

D e t e c t i v e S e r g e a n t C r a f t . The l a t t e r gave ev ideme -before

his Honour c o r r o b o r a t m g t h i s . IIe a l so gave ev idence t ha t fro,^

May t o September 1376 t h e r e vizs a lnarked l n c r c a s e i n drug

t r a f f j c h n g i n C a n b e r r a a n d t h a t a numbrr of peoslc were roi;+d

of drugs and money ciurii1g t h a t Fe1710d.

k t the conc lus lo l l o f -the ev ldence , t he l ca r rwd trial

Judge ra id tha t he found i t qui te ilnpossib1.e t o bel ' lnve Lhnr. what 8 ,

- .

t h e a p p e l l a n t anu Jurkovic had to13 h m was e n t i r e l y t h e t r u t h .

Ile said t h a t h e did n o t b e l i e v e e i t h e r 01 them. At t b e

same t i m e h i s €!onour added t ha t he cou ld no t say t h a t he was

s a t i s € i e d beyond reasonable doubt tha t a €~rcarln was usctl

but he was s a t i s f l e d beyond remonab lc doub t t ha l : t h e y ob to insd

the d rugs €rom S t e r n by t e r r i f y i n g him.

The a p p e l l a n t , at t h e a ~ c O S 16, was place2 on p r o h a t x n I

. . - 6 -

..

I

p laced on probat ion . These charges were sa id to have a r i scn

out o f a d i s t u r b a n c e a t a l o c a l h o t e l l n v o l v i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

f a t h e r . I t a p p e a r s t h a t he went t o h i s f a t h e r ' s a s s i s t a n c e

and a t some s t a g e o f t h e a f f a i r hnd produced a k n i f e .

b l r . Jurkovic had committed a crime o f v i o l e n c e i n

Dccembcr 1 9 7 2 and a crimc o f l a r c c n y i n December 1974. The

l e a r n e d t r i a l Judge took the view t h a t t h e d l f f e r e n c e i n t h e

r eco rds was n o t v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t .

On t h i s m a t e r i a l , ?lr. G a l l o p , f o r the a p p e l l a n t ,

sub in i t t ed t ha t h i s c l i en t ' s ro l e i n t he commiss ion o f t he c r iwe

was a l e a r n e d t r i a l J u d g e h a d f a l l e n i n t o e r r o r much more p a s s i v e one t h a n t h a t o f J u r k o v i c a n d t h a t t h e

by f a i l i n g t o

a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d c g r e e o f involvcment in the

co lmiss ion of the c r ime t:as s i g n i f i c a n t l y l'ess than t ha t o f

Jurkovic and tha t consequent ly he should no t havc rece ived the

same s e n t e n c e a s J u r k o v i c .

Be fo re dea l ing with the submission made on behalf of

t h e a p p e l l a n t , i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o i n d i c a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e s on

which th i s Cour t shou ld dea l w i t h such appea ls . Sec t ion 2 4 ( 1 )

of the Federal Court o i Aus t ra l ia Act 197G provides, s o f a r

a s r e l e v a n t , as f o l l o w s : -

I

"Subject t o t h i s s e c t i o n and t o any other Act , whether

passed before o r a f t e r t h e commencement o f t h i s Act

( inc lud ing an Act by v i r t u c o i which any judgments

r e f c r r e d t o In t h i s s e c t i o n a r e made f i rm1 and conclus ive

o r n o t s u b j e c r t o a p p e a l ) , the Court has .jurisdiction

t o h e a r	and	determine	-
B . . . .

I

- 7 -

(b ) appeals from judgmcnts o f t h e Supreme Court

I,

o f a T e r r i t o r y ; .....

Sec t ion 4 provides that " judgment" mcans a judgment, decree

o r o r d e r , Sec t ion 28 w h e t h e r f i n a l o r i n t e r l o c u t o r y , o r a sen tence .

so f n r a s r e l e v a n t p r o v i d e s : -

~

"(1) Subjec t t o any o t h e r A c t , t l ~ c C o u r t may, 111 t h e

e x e r c i s e o f i t s a p p e l l a t e j u r l s d i c t i o n -

a f f i r m , r e v e r s e o r vary the judgment appealed i rom;

g ive such judgment, OT make such o rde r , a s , I n

a l l the circumst;inccs, i t t h i n k s f i t , o r r e i u s e t o

make an o rde r ;

se t as ide thc judgment appea led from, i n r~l lole o r

i n p a r t , and rcmit the proscedings t o the c o u r t

from whlch the appeal was brought f o r f u r t h e r h e a r l n g

a n d d e t e r m m n t i o n , s u b j e c t t o s u c h d i r e c t i o n s as t h e

Cour t t h i n k s €i t ;

s e t a s i d e a v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g o f a j u r y i n a c l v i l

p rocecding , and enter judgment notwithstanding any

s u c h v e r d i c t o r i i n d i n g ;

s e t a s i d e t h e v e r d i c t and judgmcnt i n a t r i a l on

indictment and order R v e r d i c t o i n o t g u i l t y o r

o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e v e r d i c t t o be e n t e r e d ;

g r a n t a new t r i a l i n any case i n which t h e r e has been

a t r l a l , e i t h e r with o r ~ i t h o u t a j u r y , on any ground

l

upon bh ich i t i s a p p r o p r l a t e t o g r a n t a new t r i a l ; o r

award execu t ion f rom the Cour t o r , i n t he case o i an

appeal f r o m a n o t h e r c o u r t , award execu t ion from t h e

Court o r r c m i t t h e c a u s e t o t h a t o t h e r c o u r t , o r t o a

c o u r t f rom which a previous appeal I ~ S b r o u g h t , f o r

t h e e x e c u t i o n o f the judgment o f the Cour t .

......

(5) The powers of the Cour t under sub-sec t ion (1) i n an

appeal (whether by the Crorm o r by t h e defendant ) a g a i n s t

I a s e n t e n c e i n a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r I n c l u d e t h e p o m r t o i n c r e a s e

o r d e c r e a s e t h e s c n t e n c e o r s u b s t i t u t e a d i f f e r e n t scn tence ."

-

The p r imary ques t ion i s whethei- t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s g i v e t h i s C o u r t

- 8 -

power t o i n c r e n s e o r dec rease 3 s e n t e n c e o r s u b s t i t u t e a

d i f f e ren t s cn tence s imply because t he members o€ the Court

wou ld t hemse lves , had t hcy been i n t he pos i t l dn o f t he t r i a l

Judge, havc imposed a d l f f e r c n t s c n t e n c c o r w h e t h e r t h i s

Cour t should vary the sen tence on ly i f i t i s f i r s t convinced

that t h e t r i a l J u d g e h a s f a l l c n i n t o e r r o r i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f

-

his d i s c r e t i o n

T h i s q u e s t i o n was cons idered by the Court of Criminal

Appeal i n Nex S o u t h l Q a l e s i n r e l a t i o n t o s . 6 ( 3 ) of the Cr imina l

Appeal Act 1 9 1 2 (New South )Vales) i n - R . v . Gosper (1928) S.R.

(N.S.W.) 5G9. Tha t sub - sec t ion was quo ted t he re in as f o l l 0 1 . ~ ~ : -

. -

"On an appsa l aga ins t t he s en tence t he cour t , i f i t i s

o f o p i n i o n t h a t sonlc o ther scn tence whcther more o r

l e s s s e v e r e i s lvarranted In law and should have been

passed , sha l l quash the scn tencc and pass such o ther

s e n t c n c e i n s u b s t l t u t i o n t h c r c f o r as it t h i n k s f i t

and i n any othcr case s h a l l d i s m l s s t h e a p p e a l . "

The lligh Court had !:rcvlously considcred S . SO o f t h e sa111e

Act i n 1~ 'h i t t a l t e r v . The King (1928) 4 1 C . L . R . 230. That sect lon

i

was i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t e r m s : -

"the Attorney-General may appea l to the Cour t

o f Criminal Rppcal agamst any scntcnce pronounced

by t h e Supreme Court 01- any Court of Quartcr Scssions

and t!lc Court o i Criminal Appeal ]nay i n i t s

d i s c r e t i o n v a r y t h e s e n t c n c e and impose such

sen tence as t o t h e s a i d C o u r t may seem prope r . "

In - R . v . (;ospcr, - supra , the Court of Criminal Appeal purportcd

t o a p p l y t h e d e c i s i o n i n W h i t t a k e r ' s Casc t o s . 6 ( 3 ) . S t r e e t C . J . ,

w i th whom Fcrguson James and JJ. concur red , s a id : - . I -

.. - 9 -

"I t h i n k , as WC a r c t h e r e i o r e , t h a t i n e x e r c i s i n : : o u r powcrs

of review under S . G ( : ) of the Cr1111lnal Appeal Act,

d o i n g i n t h e p r e s c n t C B S C , WC must take

it t h a t i t h a s b e e n a u t h o r l t a t i v e l y d e c l a r e d t h a t

we have an u n f e t t e r e d j u d t c l n l d i s c r c t i o i as t o

what course we should t ake . That b e i n g so; t h e

ma t t c r i s one f o r o u r cons idc ra t ion , and , w l thou t

cons ide r ing whe the r t hc l ea rned .Judge procceded

upon any wrong p r i n c i p l e o r upon any misapprehension

o f t h e f a c t s , we h a v c t o c o n s l d e r \ : h e t h e r i n our

d l s c r e t l o n t h e s e r ~ t e n c e which Vias imposed was t o o

severe . I t r

The same m a t t e r was cons idered 111 R . __ v. Gcddes (1936) 36 S .R.

(N.S.W.) 5 5 4 where ( a t p p . 5 5 4 - 5 5 G ) Jordan C . J . , wi rh whom

Yavln J. concur rcd , s a id : -

"The s e c t i o a was cons idered by t h e High Court i n IVhi'Ltaker

v . The King ( 4 1 C . L . R . 2 3 0 ) , a n d t h c m n ~ o r l t y o f t h e Cour t

expressed t h e o ~ i i ~ ~ o n that this Court i s the reby i nves t ed

- I

w i i h an u n l i n i t e d j u d i c i a l d j s c r c t i o n - u n l l m i t c d , t h a t i s ,

w i t h l n t h e llmits of any sL:ltute which may p r e s c r i b e d

maximum o r a l a ~ n i m u m s c n t e n c c , and ~ i - ~ t h ~ n t h c f u r t h e r

limits 11npo:;ed by t h e c o n s i d c r a t l o n t h a t t h e d l s c r e t i i o n

1 s j u d i c l a l . Upon what p r i n c i p l c s , t h c n , s h o u l d t h c C o u r t

p roceed in de tc rmining whether a sen tence i s inadequate?

. . . . . I € j t appea r s t ha t t h e wrong pr inc i1) le has been

app l i ed , t hc a t t i t u d e Cour t I I I U S E , o f n e c c s s i t y , t r e a t t h e q u e s t i o n

o f t he s en tpncc as bc i n g a t l a r g c , a l t h o u g h , e v e n i n such

a c a s e , t h c and r c p o r t o f t he j udge , who a lonc h a s

had thc a t f i rs t hand, oppor tun i ty o f coming t o g r i p s w i t h the evidence

may b e , a!;d o r d i n a r i l y would b c , OC g r e a t

importance. I f no lvrong p r i n c i p l e h a s been a p p l i e d , t h e

p o s i t i o n 1s so~ewh ,? t m a l o g o u s t o t h a t !\dlich a r i s e s when,

i n a awardcd by t h e j u r y a r c inadequate o r excess ive . case i n A i c h no d e f i n i t e n e a s u r e o f damape c x i s t s ,

i t i s contendcd, before a Court o f Appeal, t h a t danagcs

I t has

been said t h a t , i n such n c a s e , t h e r o u g h r u l e i s t h a t t h e

v e r d l c t s h o u l d b e s e t a s i d e I f the Cour t cmno t i i nd any

r easonab le p ropor t lon Ijet~ieen t h c n i i ~ o ~ n t awarded and t!lc

l c s s	s u s t a i n e d :	Ts f f	Vale	Railway	Ccll~pany v .	Jenkins	( [ l9131
-_

A . C . 1 a t 7 ) . The analogy IS n o i e x a c t r u u t I t h l X T t h a t n

Court of Criminal Appeal should lntcrvene ~f the sen tence

a p p e a r s - t o it t o be o u t of reasonable p r o p o r t l o n t o t h e

c i r c u n ~ s t a n c e s o € t he c r imc , h a v i n g r ega rd t o t h c € a c t s

proved i n c v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l ; bu t be fo re t he Cour t 1s

s a t i s f i e d t h a t s u c h 111 absence of d u e p r o p o r t i o n e x i s t s ,

i: shou ld ~nake t he fu l l c s t a l l owancc f o r . t he cons ide ra t ion

t h a t t h e t r j a l ~ u d g e has had 311 advantage denied to i t ,

nalucly, t h a t he has seen t h c w i t n e s s e s , ::nd, t h e r c f o r c , t h a t

hc 113s had a11 oppor tun i ty c € formlng in~pressions which no

perusa l o f c o l d n r l n t c a n a i f o r d . Unless some e r r o r jn

- 1 0 -

I n - H a r r i s - .-- -. v. Thc Queen (1954) 9 0 C . L . R . 6 5 2 , t h e

._ _ _

High Court considered an appeal against sentence under s.64 ( 1 )

! o f t h e Papua New Guinea Act 1 9 4 9 t o hear and determine appeals

from a11 judg~nen t s , dec rees , o rde r s and sen tences o f t he

!

Supreme Court o f t h e T e r r i t o r y . The Cour t he ld t ha t it xould not

i n t e r f e r e with a sen tence o f imprisonmcnt imposed unless I t

-

was s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n e x e r c i s e d by the Court

I ,

impos ing the sen tence mlscar r icd o r was unsound o r unreasonable

i n i t s e x e r c i s e . I n a ~ o i n t ~ u d g m e n t , Dison C . J . , F u l l n g a r ,

K l t t o and Taylor JJ. c i t ed w i th approva l a passage from the

d e c i s i o n o f t h c High Court ~n Crnnssen v . The King (19%) 5 5

C . L . R . 5 0 9 . In t h e l a t t e r c a s e , a f t c r p o i n t i n g o u t t h z t an

appea l aga ins t s en tence i s an appcal from a d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t o f

t he Cour hlcTicrnan t r e spons ib l e fo r t he s en tcncc , D lxon , Eva t t and

3 5 . ( a t p . 5 1 9 ) s a l d -

"The j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i s e s u c h a d i s c r e t i o n must be

e x e r c i s e d in accordance w l t h r e c o g n i z e d p r i n c i p l e s . L

I t i s no t enough t ha t t hc members of t h e c o u r t would

themselves have imposed r? l c s s o r d i f i e r c n t s c n t e n c e ,

o r t h a t t h e y t h i n k t h e s e n t c n c e o v e r - s e v e r e . There

must he some r e a s o n f o r r e g a r d i n g t h c d i s c r e t l o n

confided t o t h e c o u r t o f f i r s t i n s t a n c e as improperly

e x e r c i s e d . This may appcar from thc c i r cums tanccs

which t h a t c o u r t has taken i n t o account . They may

inc lude some c o n s l d e r a t l o n s which ought no t t o have

a f f e c t e d t h e d i s c r e t i o n , o r nay csclude others which

ought t o h2ve done s o . The court may havc mistaken

o r been mi s l ed a s t o t he f ac t s , o r an e r ror o f l aw may

have been o r op ln ioas which made. E f f e c t m y have been given to vie1:s

are ex t rcme o r misguided. But i t

i s n o t should he n e c c s s a r y t h a t somc cleKlnitc o r s p c c i f l c e r r g r

a s s igned . The n a t u r e o f t h e s e n t e n c e i t s e l f ,

when c o n s i d e r e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e o E f e n c e and afKoi-6 t h e

c i rcumstances of t h e c a s e , may bc such a s t o

convinc ing ev idence tha t In some v a y t h e e x e r c i s e

of t h e p r inc ip les d i s c r e t i o n has beer! unsound. In s h o r t , t!le

which gu ide co l l r t s o f appea l in c lca l ing

w j t h m a t t e r s r e s t i n g i n thr d l s c r e t i o n o f t h c c o u r t

o f f i r s t i n s t a n c e r x s t r a i n t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h t s

c o u r t t o cases whcrc the s en tcnce appea r s un rcasonab le ,

o r has no t been f i s ed 111 t lw duc and propcr exercise

o f t h e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r l t y . "

. . - 11 -

Following	t h i s	c i t n t l o n	t h e i r	Honours	(a t p.G56)	i n Harrts'	Case	-	I
added -

" I t i s n o t enough i n a p p l y i n g t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s t h a t

t he j udges of t h i s Cour t shou ld r ega rd t he sen tence , -

a s g r e a t e r than they themselves would have imposed."

~

IVe t h i n k t h a t S . 2 4 of the Federa l Cour t o f A u s t r a l i a

Act 1976 i s t h e s u b s t a n t i v e s e c t i o n c o n f e r r m g upon t h i s Court

~ u r l s d i c t i o n t o hea r appes l s fro111 t h e Supreme Court of a

T e r r i t o r y and t h a t S. 28 i s modal . Scct icn 2 4 ( i ) ( h ) , I f t h e

es tended maning of " judgment" i s i n s e r t e d , p r o v i d e s t h a t th ls

C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and detcrmine appeals fro111

1

judgments, decrees o r o r d e r s , w h e t h e r f i n a l o r i n t e r l o c u t o z y ,

o r s en tences o f t he Supreme Court of n Territory. T h l s provision

i s a l m o s t Guinea Act i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e provision in the Papua New

l 9 4 9 cons idered by t h e High Court in Narris ' Casc

supra . 14e c a n n o t d i s t m g u i s h t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t ,

l under the Federal Court of Austral ia Act 1 9 7 6 , f r o m t h e p o s l t ~ o n

of the Hieh Court in Harrls' Case. 1Ye the rc fo re p ropose t o

c o n s i d e r t h e a p p e a l 011 t h e p r i n c i p l e s l a i d down i n t h a t c a s e ,

i n Cranssen v . The King supra and in I!ouse v. The King (193G) 5 5

C . J , . R . 4 9 9 r a t h e r t h a n i n - R . v. Gosper (1028) 2 6 S.R. (X.S.V.)

565. Moreover i t appears from what was s a l d by Barwick C . J .

and Jacobs u n r e p o r t e d ) J . i n G r l f f i t h s v . The Qucen (High Cour t , 1 7 / 8 / 7 7 ,

t h a t it would be wrong t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m a ~ o r i t y

view in Whittaker v. The Klng (1928) 4 1 C . L . R . 230 was t h a t upon

a11 appea l aga ins t s en tence unde r s.51) o f the Crimlnal Appeal Act

1 9 1 2 , the Court o f Criminal 'Appcal had an u n f c t t e r e d d i s c r e t l o n .

- 11 -

' . .

Ne r e t u r n t h e r e i o r e t o c o n s l d e r t h e s u b m i s s i o n s o f

t h e a p p e l l a n t i n t h e l i g h t o i t h e s e p r i n c i p l c s . I t i s c l c a r

from the evidence o f Mr. S t c r n t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t and Mr.

Jurkovic pcr for lncd d i f fe ren t t asks in t h e connnissxon o f thc c r ime.

We do n o t t h l n k i t n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w s t h a t t h e a p p c l l a n t

played	a	s i g n i f i c a n t l y	l e s s e r	r o l e .	Ne	d i s r e g a r d ,	a s	d i d	t h e
-

l e a r n e d t r i a l J u d g e , t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n

o f t h e p r e s e n t e d a u t o m a t i c p i s t o l . The a p p e l l a n t and Mr. Ju rkov ic

t h e m s e l v e s t o g e t h e r a t t h e f r o n t d o o r o i S t e rn ' s house .

The appe l l an t t ook upon h i m s e l i t h e t a s k o f t e s t i n g t h e q u a l i t y

o i t h e h e r o i n . Mr. Gal lop l l rgcd t ha t t he ev idence t ha t t he

a p p e l l a n t t o l d J u r k o v i c n o t t o h i t S t c r n a t one s t a g e o f t h e

a f f a i r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was e n d e a v o u r i n e t o r e s t r a i n J u r k o v i c .

I t i s more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t i n d i c a t i n g t o J u r k o v i c

t h a t i n t h c a p p e l l a n t ' s o p i n i o n , t h e v i o l e n c e w h i c h h a d o c c u r r e d

up u n t i l t h e n was s u f f i c i e n t t o p c r s u a d c S t e r n t o r e v e a l where

i the he ro in was. During the course of thc long conversat ion,

t h c a p p e l l a n t l e i t t h e h o u s e on two occas ions on t h e p r e t e s t o f ,

g o i n g o u t t o t h e p o l i c e c a r t o c h e c k on t h e names and addres ses

s u p p l i e d t o him by Stern. Throughout most o f t he t ime t ha t t i l e

a p p e l l a n t and Ju rkov ic were a t t h e h o u s e , the appel la r i t was

searchiag the house f o i - drugs. After the drugs had becn

produced i t was t h e a p p e l l a n t who iniormcd Stern that he had

hidden two capsu le s o f he ro in in the house and tha t i f S t e r n f e l l

out o i l i n e t h e y would come back and charge 11lm i n r e s p e c t of

t h c s e a t some o t h e r t i m e . The appe l l an t and Ju rkov ic l e f t t he

house together. Throughout the whole o f t h e 'Ci1;ic they WCTC t h e r e , '

t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t d i s s o c l n t e h i n l s e l i in any way iron1 t!le

- 13 -

' l

'I

pre t ence t ha t t hey were bo th members o f t he po l l ce fo rce . These

var ious mattcrs, which werc ilnmcdiatcly before thc l e a r n e d t r i a l

I

Judge a t t h e t i m e he pas sed s en tence , i nd ica t ea no more thzn a

;!

d i v i s i o n o f l abour be tween the appel lan t and Jurkovic in o rde r

t o a c h i e v e t h e i r common purpose. I t does no t appea r t o u s t h a t

t h e r e was much t o choose between them; and i t must have s o

appeared t o His Honour. -

His Honour was the re fo re p re sen ted w i th an o f f ence

under S . 97 i n r e l a t i o n t o which -

(a) The a p p e l l a n t v o l u n t a r i l y came t o S t e r n ' s hoJne i n _ .

company	w l t h J u r k o v i c f o r t h e p u r p o s e	o f	g e t t i n g
-

h e r o i n and i f necessa ry t ak ing it from S t e r n by f o r c e .

( h ) The a p p e l l a n t and Ju rkov ic occup ied S t e rn ' s home

I

f o r a p e r i o d of some two h o u r s du r ing w!lich t h e y

pre tended t o bc members o i t h e p o l i c e f o r c e and

during which Stern was handcuffed and tc r ror l sed .

(c) Al though the appel lan t d id no t h imsel f apply any

p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e t o S t e r n , h e a c t i v e l y c o - o p c r a t e d

wi th f u l l p a r t n e r i n Jurkovic th roughout the whole a f fa i r and was a

a j o i n t c n t c r p r i s e t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e

j o i n t p u r p o s e o f robb ing S t e rn with such v lo lence as

vas n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h a t p u r p o s e .

l

(d) The of fence occur red dur lng a f i v e 111011th pe r iod when

I .

t h e r e IWS an i nc rease o f d rug t r a f f i ck ing i n Canber ra

and a number of people were robbed of drugs and money.

(e) On th ree p rev lous occas ions cour t s had t r e a t e d t h e

a p p e l l a n t leniently by p l a c m g him on 'p roba t ion .

- 14 -

In t he c i r cums tances , WC d o n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

t r i a l Judge fell i n t o any e r r o r I n t h e c x e r c i s e O f h i5 diSCret lOn.

We do n o t t h i n k tha t the se!l tence was mani fes tzy or a t a l l

, -

excessive, e i t h e r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e h c a d s e n t c n c e o r t h e non-

paro le p e r i o d .

The o r d e r o f the Cour t will b e appeal dismissed.

..