R v Cetojevic

Petar and Nenad Cetojevic appealed against their sentences for drug possession and sale, arguing the sentences were excessive. The District Court had sentenced Petar to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months, and Nenad to four years with a non-parole period of two years and one month. The appellants contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive and outside the established range for middle range drug offences. They argued that the sentencing judge erred in placing greater weight on the quantity of drugs rather than the indicia of sale. The court considered whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether they were outside the established range of sentences for middle range drug offences. It also examined whether the sentencing judge erred in focusing on the quantity of drugs instead of the commercial element of the offences.

The court noted that the offences involved an ongoing commercial enterprise, which generally warrants an immediate custodial sentence. However, it recognised the hardship such sentences cause to the offender and their family. The court found that while the offending was serious, good reason had not been demonstrated to suspend the sentences. The court allowed the appeals and substituted the sentences. Petar Cetojevic's sentence was reduced to three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months, and Nenad Cetojevic's sentence was reduced to three years and six months with a non-parole period of twenty-one months.