Legal Research
Cases
R v Blaskovic

R v Blaskovic

Case [1999] FCA 1306 16 September 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

The Queen v. Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306
Criminal Law

The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence by Director of Public Prosecutions - drug offences - criminal history - use of Griffiths Bond - sentencing principles required by statute - purposes of sentencing - whether treatment order sufficient - whether parity - whether mitigating circumstances.

Crimes Act 1900 (Cth)

Drugs of Dependence Act (1989) (ACT)

Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293

Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295

The Queen v S (1992) 39 FCR 276

THE QUEEN v SINISH MATTHEW BLASKOVIC

A 36 of 1999

SPENDER, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ

16 SEPTEMBER 1999

MELBOURNE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT
REGISTRY
A 36 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND: SINISH MATTHEW BLASKOVIC
Respondent

#DATE 16:09:1999
JUDGES:
SPENDER, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 16 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 36 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND: SINISH BLASKOVIC
Respondent

JUDGES: SPENDER, MADGWICK and DOWSETT JJ
DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE: MELBOURNE (heard in CANBERRA)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

1 The sentences the subject of appeals by the Crown and the facts relevant to them are set out in the reasons for judgment of Dowsett J, which I have had the benefit of reading in draft form.

2 In respect of the count of possession of a trafficable quantity of heroin for sale on 24 September 1998, the learned sentencing judge, Miles CJ, imposed a treatment order pursuant to s 123 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). In respect of the count of possession of a trafficable quantity of heroin for sale on 27 September 1998, the learned sentencing judge ordered a period of imprisonment for two years suspended upon the respondent entering into recognisance to be of good behaviour for three years and to submit to supervision. The sentencing process on the remaining counts was adjourned to 6 August 1999 and further adjourned.

3 It is in my opinion an unsatisfactory outcome that there is a combination of sentences of the kind imposed in the present case and what might be termed a Griffiths remand on other counts.

4 The appeal is complicated by the fact that the learned sentencing judge gave no formal reasons for the sentences that he imposed, and the fact that he disposed of the remaining counts by the making of a Griffiths remand. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not seek leave to appeal in respect of the orders for adjournment concerning the Griffiths remands, and…

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 R v Blaskovic

Details

AGLC: The Queen v. Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306
Case: [1999] FCA 1306
Decision Date: 16 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on Sinish Blaskovic for drug-related offences. Blaskovic pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of a trafficable quantity of heroin for sale. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Justices Spender, Madgwick, and Dowsett presiding. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate, requiring the court to intervene and impose more severe penalties. The Crown argued that the sentences were too lenient considering the nature of the offences and Blaskovic's criminal history. Specifically, the Crown pointed to the maximum penalties prescribed by the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) and comparable sentences in similar cases as evidence that the sentences were inadequate. The court considered various factors, including the purposes of sentencing, the personal circumstances of Blaskovic, and the nature of the offences. The justices acknowledged the sentencing judge's intention to provide Blaskovic with an opportunity for rehabilitation, which they believed was a legitimate consideration. However, they also stressed the importance of proportionality and the need to balance rehabilitation with other sentencing objectives such as deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that while the sentencing judge's decision to focus on rehabilitation was not without merit, the sentences imposed were not commensurate with the seriousness of the offences. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentences, and imposed sentences of imprisonment for three-and-a-half years with a non-parole period of twelve months, to be served concurrently. The judges took into account the time Blaskovic had already served in custody and the principles of remission under the Crimes Act 1900 (Cth). The final orders included a requirement for the parties to provide an explanation of the sentences if necessary, in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders