District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v JERKIC, Ricky [2017] NSWDC 317 Hearing dates: 29 September 2017 Date of orders: 29 September 2017 Decision date: 29 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Judge S Norrish QC Decision: Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]
Catchwords: CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – break, enter and steal property – Form 1 offences – taking and driving conveyance without the consent of the owner – dishonestly obtain advantage property by deception – offence committed whilst on parole – offences committed within private residences – limited planning – no force or threat against any victim – offences were not impulsive but opportunistic – consideration of the balance of parole to be served in the determination of non-parole period – offender to serve balance of sentence in Queensland following completion of non-parole period in NSW – 28 years old – lengthy criminal record in home state of Queensland – history of drug dependency – no finding of remorse – offender undertook a residential rehabilitation program while on parole – no mental health issues present – totality of sentencing – finding of special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application (No 1) of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Regina v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 422Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ricky Jerkic (Offender)Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Gauld (DPP Solicitor)
Ms Williams (Legal Aid Solicitor)
File Number(s): 2016/001688612016/00169011 Publication restriction: Nil
SENTENCE
-
HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Ricky Jerkic, appears today for sentence in relation to a number of offences. The first offences in time being committed on 29 May 2016 or thereabouts. The principal offence is an offence of breaking, entering and stealing property contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.
-
There are two matters on a Form 1 attaching to that principal offence committed on 29 May 2016. Taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner, which ordinarily if dealt with on indictment would carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, and a second offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception which, if dealt with on indictment, would carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. Although I would imagine these two matters on a Form 1 would have ordinarily in the course of matters, but for the principal offence, be dealt with in the Local Court.
-
The second group of offences were committed on 1 June 2016. They comprise two breaking, entering and stealings, one offence involving stealing property greater than a value of $60,000 and a second breaking, entering…
Continue reading R v Jerkic, Ricky
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jerkic, Ricky [2017] NSWDC 317
- Case
- [2017] NSWDC 317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered several factors in determining the sentence, including the seriousness of the offences, the lack of planning and the opportunistic nature of the crimes, and the absence of any physical force or threats against the victims. The fact that Jerkic was on parole at the time of the offences and had a lengthy criminal history, particularly in his home state of Queensland, was also taken into account. Additionally, the court noted Jerkic's drug dependency and the lack of remorse shown, although it was acknowledged that he had undertaken a residential rehabilitation program while on parole. The court found that the offences warranted a full-time custodial sentence and determined that Jerkic would serve the balance of his sentence in Queensland after completing his non-parole period in New South Wales.
In arriving at the sentence, the court gave significant weight to the totality of Jerkic's offending, his criminal history, and the need to ensure public safety. The court found that special circumstances existed due to the nature of the offences and Jerkic's criminal background, which justified a longer custodial sentence. The final orders of the court mandated a full-time custodial sentence, with specific directions for the execution of the sentence as detailed in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]
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.