R v Krivosic (No. 7)

In the case, the offender, Krivosic, was found guilty of murdering the victim after a trial by jury. Krivosic shot the victim after taking a loaded firearm to premises where the victim was present. The offender was angered by the victim’s violent conduct towards a friend of the offender, and subsequently fired a single shot before attacking the victim physically. Krivosic intended to cause serious bodily harm, but not to kill the victim. The court found the objective gravity of the offence to be in the upper mid-range and Krivosic to have substantial moral culpability. The offender was on parole at the time of the offence for a previous firearm offence. The importance of specific and general deterrence was considered, as was the absence of contrition and remorse from Krivosic. The court imposed a substantial term of imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence and the appropriate term of imprisonment. The court considered the offender’s culpability, the circumstances of the offence, the importance of specific and general deterrence, and the absence of contrition and remorse from the offender. The court also considered the offender’s prior criminal history, including the fact that the offender was on parole at the time of the offence. The court applied the principles of sentencing set out in relevant case law, including the need to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court found the objective gravity of the offence to be in the upper mid-range, reflecting the serious nature of the crime and the offender’s substantial moral culpability. The court also considered the importance of specific and general deterrence, and the absence of contrition and remorse from the offender. The court imposed a substantial term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the offender and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also considered the offender’s prior criminal history and the fact that the offender was on parole at the time of the offence.

The court varied the commencement date of the sentence by applying the slip rule to an agreed error in the date. The court found that the error did not affect the overall sentence and that the slip rule was an appropriate means of correcting the error. The final orders of the court included the imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment and the variation of the commencement date of the sentence.