R v Bojcevski - [2024] NSWDC 299

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bojcevski; Birkic; Drenovac [2024] NSWDC 299
Hearing dates: 6 October and 24 November 2023; 23 February and 24 April 2024
Decision date: 19 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Offender: Mr Bojcevsk: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non parole period of 9 years.
Offender: Mr Birkic: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months.
Offender: Mr Drenovac: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non parole period of 9 years 9 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - supply a prohibited drug greater than the large commercial quantity - knowingly take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug in an amount greater than the large commercial quantity - knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime - participating in a criminal group - expert witnesses - departure from Code of Conduct.

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss25(2) and 24(2); Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss193B(2) and 93T(1)

Cases Cited:
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; Parris v R [2013] NSWCCA 5; R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135; Flower v R; Mafiti v R [2024] NSWCCA 76

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Robert Bojcevski (Offender)
Ante Birkic (Offender)
Nikola Drenovac (Offender)
Representation:
(Variously) Messrs Christoff and Isaacs (Crown Prosecutors)

Mr G. James KC and Mr E. James (Counsel for the offenders Bojcevski and Drenovac)
Mr B. Walker SC and Mr R. Webb (Counsel for the offender Birkic)

File Number(s): 2021/230184; 2021/230379; 2021/230577
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Robert Bojcevski, Ante Birkic and Nikola Drenovac, you all appear for sentence today in relation to various principal offences connected with the manufacture and / or supply of prohibited drugs.
Four of those offences are common to you all.
However, there is one additional principal offence which is unique to Mr Birkic; and there are two additional principal offences which are unique to Mr Drenovac.
In addition to these principal offences, there are matters on Form 1s.
Those principal offences and the Form 1 matters are as follows.
The first principal offence which is common to all of you, is supplying a prohibited drug greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug (viz 14.0221 kilograms of cocaine). This is sequence 2 for Mr Bojcevski; sequence 5 for Mr Birkic; and sequence 2 for Mr Drenovac.
The second principal offence which is common to all of you, is also supplying a prohibited drug greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug (viz 20.872 kilograms of methylamphetamine). This is sequence 1 for Mr Bojcevski; sequence 6 for Mr Birkic; and sequence 1 for Mr Drenovac.
The third principal offence which is common to all of you, is again supplying a prohibited drug greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug (viz 60.951 kilograms of cocaine). This is sequence 7 for Mr Bojcevski; sequence 12 for Mr Birkic;…

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 Bojcevski

Details

AGLC: R v Bojcevski [2024] NSWDC 299
Case: [2024] NSWDC 299
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bojcevski, the defendants were convicted of various drug-related offences, including the supply, manufacture, and dealing with proceeds of a prohibited drug in quantities exceeding the large commercial threshold. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants argued that the expert witnesses provided by the prosecution did not adhere to the Code of Conduct, which they claimed should lead to a dismissal of the charges against them. The court was required to determine whether the defendants' convictions should be upheld despite the alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate.

The court considered the arguments presented by the defendants regarding the expert witnesses and their adherence to the Code of Conduct. The court found that the experts had not departed from the Code to such an extent that it rendered the evidence inadmissible. The court also evaluated the nature and circumstances of the offences, the roles played by each defendant, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions and that the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness of the crimes.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendants' convictions were valid and that the sentences imposed were appropriate. The court recognised the severity of the drug-related offences and the need to deter and denounce such activities. The sentences imposed on each defendant reflected the specific roles they played in the criminal activities and the need for individualised sentencing. The court acknowledged the defendants' arguments but ultimately found that they did not warrant a departure from the imposed sentences.

The final orders of the court were as follows: Mr Bojcevski was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years, Mr Birkic was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months, and Mr Drenovac was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non-parole period of 9 years and 9 months. The court's decision upheld the convictions and the sentences imposed on the defendants, reflecting the seriousness of the drug-related offences and the need for appropriate punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender: Mr Bojcevsk: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non parole period of 9 years.

Offender: Mr Birkic: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months.

Offender: Mr Drenovac: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non parole period of 9 years 9 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Bojcevski; Birkic; Drenovac [2024] NSWDC 299
Hearing dates:	6 October and 24 November 2023; 23 February and 24 April 2024
Decision date:	19 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Offender: Mr Bojcevsk: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years with a non parole period of 9 years. Offender: Mr Birkic: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months. Offender: Mr Drenovac: Aggregate term of imprisonment of 13 years with a non parole period of 9 years 9 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - supply a prohibited drug greater than the large commercial quantity - knowingly take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug in an amount greater than the large commercial quantity - knowingly deal with the proceeds of crime - participating in a criminal group - expert witnesses - departure from Code of Conduct.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss25(2) and 24(2); Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss193B(2) and 93T(1)
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; Parris v R [2013] NSWCCA 5; R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135; Flower v R; Mafiti v R [2024] NSWCCA 76
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Robert Bojcevski (Offender) Ante Birkic (Offender) Nikola Drenovac (Offender)
Representation:	(Variously) Messrs Christoff and Isaacs (Crown Prosecutors) Mr G. James KC and Mr E. James (Counsel for the offenders Bojcevski and Drenovac) Mr B. Walker SC and Mr R. Webb (Counsel for the offender Birkic)
File Number(s):	2021/230184; 2021/230379; 2021/230577
Publication restriction:	Nil