R v Cekic

The appeal concerned five appellants who had been convicted of aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm and aggravated theft. The appellants were tried by a judge sitting without a jury and received various terms of imprisonment. The central dispute on appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the application of sentencing principles and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were appropriate, specifically considering the principles of parity between co-offenders and other related offenders. This involved an assessment of whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied these principles when determining the length of the custodial sentences and the non-parole periods.

The court, comprising Vanstone and Kelly JJ and David AJ, found no errors in the sentencing. In particular, Vanstone J noted that there were no errors in the final head sentence and non-parole period fixed in relation to one of the appellants, Paunovic. This finding was agreed with by the other members of the court.

Consequently, the court concluded that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by any of the appellants had been made out. Accordingly, the appeal in each case was dismissed.