District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kovacev [2020] NSWDC 903 Hearing dates: 12 March 2020 Date of orders: 12 March 2020 Decision date: 12 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: An aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of 10 months: at [15].
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — General principles — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: Barbieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 295
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michael Kovacev (Offender)Representation: Mr S Flint (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Ms S Climo (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/133372
Judgment
-
Michael Kovacev, who is now 58 years of age, pleads guilty to two offences
Sequence 1 - Supply 0.59 grams of heroin contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.
Sequence 6 - Supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis involving a total of 1.07 grams of heroin over six occasions contrary to s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.
-
The offender pleaded guilty at an early stage justifying a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas.
-
There is no dispute between the very helpful written submissions prepared by the Crown and Ms Climo on behalf of the offender as to the objective seriousness of the offending and as to the other matters relevant to the purposes of sentencing.
-
n short, the facts show that in December 2018 a police investigation relating to the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs in the Surry Hills and Sydney CBD commenced. On 12 December the offender was seen providing .59 grams of heroin to a female, which is the subject of the first sequence. The ongoing supply count relate to a number of supplies between 17 January 2019 and 31 January 2019, in which the offender supplied various customers with small amounts of heroin making the total to which I have referred.
-
On his arrest on 29 April 2019 he candidly admitted being involved in the supply of heroin. He gave police the details as to how he conducted the operation. He said he was using more than he was earning and he would make $10 for each small deal of heroin and $20 for a big deal. He said he was a heroin addict and he knows what it is like to hang out, and he used his modest profits to purchase heroin and contribute towards paying back a debt of over $4000.
-
He…
Continue reading R v Kovacev
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kovacev [2020] NSWDC 903
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 903
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the sentence was excessive given the mitigating factors, and if the sentence adequately balanced the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the co-offenders’ sentences, and the overall seriousness of the offences. Additionally, the court examined the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his addiction and mental health, to determine if these warranted a lesser sentence.
The Court of Appeal found that while the offences were serious, the sentence was appropriate considering the mitigating factors. The court acknowledged Kovacev's plea of guilty, his expressed remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. However, it also considered the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community. Ultimately, the court determined that the original sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, thus dismissing the appeal.
No further orders were made, and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of 10 months: at [15].
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.