R v Janna Maree Sladic - [2015] ACTSC 31

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v JANNA MAREE SLADIC
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 31
Hearing Date(s):	6 February 2015
DecisionDate:	10 February 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Janna Sladic’s conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery, committed on 13 November 2011, be confirmed. 2. Janna Sladic be sentenced to three years imprisonment to commence on 11 January 2014. 3. That the sentence be suspended for two years from 10 February 2015. 4. That Janna Sladic be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that she be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her; and (b) that she engage in counselling for drug use and mental health issues to be discussed and agreed between her and the person supervising her or, failing agreement as directed by the person supervising her. (c) that she submit yourself to urinalysis as and when reasonably required by the person supervising her.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Aggravated Robbery – Knife crime – Sentencing – Breach of good behaviour order – History of drug addiction – Attempts at rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 18, 137 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310(a)
Cases Cited:	Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408 Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 R v D F (No 2) (2012) 6 ACTLR 105 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Molina (1984) 2 FCR 508 R v Sladic (Unreported, ACTSC, Refshauge J, SCC 46 of 2012, 14 December 2012). R v Sladic [2014] ACTSC 56 Wong v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 111
Texts Cited:	Willow Bryant and Tracy Cussen, Homicide in Australia 2010-2011 and 2011-12, National Homicide Monitoring Program Report (Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra, 2015) AIC Monitoring Report No 23,
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Janna Maree Sladic (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu-Khan (Crown) Mr T Crispin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) S & T Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 46 of 2012

Refshauge J:

The principles of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) do not always point in the same direction and the instinctive synthesis that is sentencing (Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 611; [75]) often requires competing considerations to be finely balanced and traded off to impose the just and appropriate sentence.

Appearing before me now for sentence is Janna Sladic who, on 6 December 2012, pleaded guilty to one count of committing on 13 November 2011 robbery in company with Taras Twerd and who, at the time had a knife with her, being an offensive weapon. That offence of aggravated robbery is prohibited by s 310(a) of the Criminal Code…

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 Janna Maree Sladic

Details

AGLC: R v Janna Maree Sladic [2015] ACTSC 31
Case: [2015] ACTSC 31
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Janna Maree Sladic, was convicted of aggravated robbery, committed with a knife, and sentenced by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The conviction and sentence were appealed by Sladic on the grounds that they were excessive. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, given her history of drug addiction and prior attempts at rehabilitation. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for an offence of this nature, considering Sladic's background and the principles of sentencing in the Australian Capital Territory.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. It considered Sladic's history of drug addiction, which the court acknowledged as a significant mitigating factor. However, the court also highlighted the seriousness of the offence, which involved the use of a knife and a substantial breach of a previous good behaviour order. The court balanced these considerations and concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and to provide a deterrent effect. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while Sladic had made efforts to rehabilitate, the gravity of the offence and her breach of a good behaviour order necessitated a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent to future offending. The court also considered the importance of addressing Sladic's drug addiction and mental health issues as part of her rehabilitation. The sentence, while severe, was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The orders of the court included confirming the conviction, setting a suspended sentence, and imposing specific conditions for supervision and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Janna Sladic’s conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery, committed on 13 November 2011, be confirmed.

2. Janna Sladic be sentenced to three years imprisonment to commence on 11 January 2014.

3. That the sentence be suspended for two years from 10 February 2015.

4. That Janna Sladic be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that she be subject to the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising her; and

(b) that she engage in counselling for drug use and mental health issues to be discussed and agreed between her and the person supervising her or, failing agreement as directed by the person supervising her.

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.