Maglovski v R

Maglovski appealed his conviction and sentence for murder, contending that the sentencing judge erred in setting the non-parole period at 80 per cent of the head sentence and in failing to find special circumstances. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge made an error in calculating the non-parole period and in not finding special circumstances that would have warranted a reduction in the non-parole period. The court also considered whether the failure of the defence counsel to raise special circumstances during sentencing proceedings constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the defendant.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not made an error in setting the non-parole period at 80 per cent of the head sentence, as the judge had correctly considered the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court held that the sentencing judge had also not erred in failing to find special circumstances, as the defence counsel had not raised the issue during sentencing proceedings. The court further held that the defence counsel's failure to raise special circumstances did not constitute a breach of the duty of care owed to the defendant, as the defence counsel had acted reasonably in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The non-parole period of 16 years was upheld, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge had not made any error in setting the non-parole period or in failing to find special circumstances, and that the defence counsel's failure to raise special circumstances did not constitute a breach of the duty of care owed to the defendant.