JUDGES:	NEAVE and KELLAM JJA, CURTAIN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 October 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 February 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 14

---

Criminal law – Applicants convicted of cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant (count 1) and trafficking in a drug of dependence (count 2) – Crown concession that applicants should not have been convicted of both counts 1 and 2, as both counts based on the same acts – Appeal against conviction on count 2 allowed – Whether judge erred in respect of various aspects of charge – Whether failure to give a separate consideration direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether aggregate of errors – Whether verdict on count 1 unsafe – Appeal against conviction on count 1 dismissed.

Criminal law – Re-sentencing – Parity – Relevance of the risk of automatic forfeiture under Confiscation Act 1997 to re-sentencing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M A Gamble	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Filipovic	Mr L C Carter	Robert Stary & Associates
For the Applicant Gelevski	Mr M Croucher	Robert Stary & Associates

NEAVE JA:

The applicants, Robert Gelevski and Zoran Filipovic, were each found guilty by a jury of one count of cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant (count 1) and one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence (count 2). The drug was cannabis L. Each of the applicants also pleaded guilty to one count of theft of electricity (count 3) and one count of intentionally and without lawful excuse damaging property (count 4).

On 9 February 2007 both applicants were sentenced by a judge of the County Court. The sentences, which were the same for each applicant, were as follows: on count 1, two years and six months’ imprisonment; on count 2, one year’s imprisonment; on count 3, six months’ imprisonment; and on count 4, three months’ imprisonment. The learned sentencing judge directed three months of the sentence imposed on count 3 should be served cumulatively on count 1. This produced a total effective sentence for each applicant of two years and nine months’ imprisonment. His Honour ordered a 15 month non-parole period. His Honour also made a compensation order in the sum of $2447 to the victim of the criminal damage.

Both applicants now appeal against their convictions on count 1 and count 2, and against their sentences of imprisonment.

The Facts

Most of the facts in this case were uncontroversial. On 19 November 2004, Mr Gelevski entered into a lease agreement in respect of premises at 89 North Road, Avondale Heights (‘the premises’). On 14 December 2004, Origin Energy connected electricity at the premises. The electricity account was in Mr Filipovic’s name.

The applicants arranged for the illegal diversion of the power supply to…

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 Filipovic

Details

AGLC: R v Filipovic [2008] VSCA 14
Case: [2008] VSCA 14
Decision Date: 15 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Filipovic involved the applicants, who had been convicted of cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant and trafficking in a drug of dependence. The appeal was heard in a relevant Australian court, which examined the legal issues arising from these convictions. The Crown conceded that the applicants should not have been convicted of both counts as they were based on the same acts, leading to an appeal against the conviction on count 2. The court had to decide whether the judge erred in various aspects of the charge, whether the failure to provide a separate consideration direction led to a miscarriage of justice, and if there was an aggregate of errors that affected the verdict on count 1.

The court examined the legal issues meticulously, focusing on whether the judge's handling of the case was flawed and if the absence of a separate consideration direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the cumulative effect of any errors was significant enough to render the verdict on count 1 unsafe and reliable. In its reasoning, the court found that while there were errors in the proceedings, they did not reach the threshold of a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against the conviction on count 2 was allowed, as the double conviction was improper, while the appeal against the conviction on count 1 was dismissed as the verdict remained reliable despite the errors.

Following the findings, the court proceeded to address the re-sentencing aspect of the case. It considered the relevance of the risk of automatic forfeiture under the Confiscation Act 1997 to the re-sentencing process. The court determined that the risk of forfeiture was a pertinent factor to be considered in re-sentencing, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and took into account all relevant circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction on count 2 was quashed, and the applicants were to be re-sentenced for the single offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant. The conviction on count 1 remained intact, and the applicants were to be re-sentenced accordingly. The court's decision underscored the importance of judicial accuracy in criminal proceedings and the necessity of considering all relevant factors in re-sentencing.

Orders