District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kuzmic [2020] NSWDC 934 Hearing dates: 18 December 2020 Date of orders: 18 December 2020 Decision date: 18 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: Pars [37]-[41], [43].
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – Cultivation of prohibited plants – Cannabis – Numerous driving offences of, inter alia, driving whilst suspended and disqualified – Plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - Contrition and remorse – Prospects of rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Fines Act1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Sentence Parties: R – Crown
Offender – Zoran KuzmicRepresentation: R – Pattinson
Offender - Todd
File Number(s): 2020/00029814 Publication restriction: Nil.
Judgment
Background
-
HIS HONOUR: The facts of this case are discussed in the sentence of the offender’s mother, and technically his co-offender, Ms Susan Gai Hyland, in R v Hyland [2020] NSWDC 933. I turn now to the sentence for the offender in this case, and the son of the duo, Mr Zoran Kuzmic. Mr Kuzmic was born in May 1984. He is currently 36 years old.
-
As I said in R v Hyland, earlier in January 2020 police commenced an investigation into the suspected cultivation of cannabis by enhanced indoor means at premises at Bexley North and also at 37 Thomas Street, Hurstville. At the time, the offender was residing with his mother at Bexley North. He was neither the tenant nor the owner of the property at 37 Thomas Street, Hurstville.
-
Between 15 and 29 January 2020 the police commenced electronic and physical surveillance of the premises at Hurstville. On three occasions during that period the offender was seen to arrive at, leave or be at the premises at Hurstville.
-
The offender’s driver’s licence was disqualified by order of the Burwood Local Court commencing on 19 February 2019. The disqualification was to end on 19 February 2020. On 17 January 2020, the offender was seen under surveillance at 37 Thomas Street, Hurstville to enter the driver’s seat of a grey Subaru Impreza, registered number BVP45G. That constitutes an offence of driving a motor vehicle during a period of disqualification. It is a matter on a s 166 certificate for which I must deal with the offender.
-
On 22 January 2020 at about 8.55am police observed the offender leave the front door of the premises at Hurstville and enter the driver’s side door of the grey Subaru and drive it to 26 Oliver Street, Bexley North, where he entered by the front door. That constitutes a second offence of driving whilst disqualified and is a matter which I must deal with on the s 166 certificate.
-
On 28 January 2020 investigators applied for and were granted search warrants for both the property at Bexley North and the property at Hurstville. The search warrant for the premises at Hurstville was executed on 29 January 2020. Inside the premises, the…
Continue reading R v Kuzmic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kuzmic [2020] NSWDC 934
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 934
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the defendant's culpability and the need for the sentence to serve both punitive and rehabilitative purposes. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's background, and the principles of sentencing that guide courts in balancing the need for deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation. The court was also tasked with evaluating the mitigating factors presented, such as the defendant's early guilty plea and the demonstration of remorse.
In delivering the judgment, the court carefully weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors. It acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea and expressions of contrition and remorse, which were considered in favour of a more lenient sentence. The court also assessed the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that provided an opportunity for the defendant to reform and reintegrate into society. The final orders, detailed in paragraphs [37]-[41], [43], reflect the court's determination of the appropriate sentence considering all these factors.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pars [37]-[41], [43].
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.