R v Medini - [2002] VSC 12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1405 of 2002

THE QUEEN

AFRIM MEDINI

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 February 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 February 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Medini
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 12

---

Criminal Law – Sentence

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N. Parkinson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Randles	Randles Cooper & Co Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Afrim Medini, you have pleaded guilty to a substantial number of offences which occurred during the period 9 January 2001 and 19 June 2001.

The offences can be separated into two categories. The first concerns threatening and violent conduct directed towards various members of a family, which resulted in some property damage and considerable and significant distress, anxiety and upset to the persons involved. These offences are the subjects of Counts 1 - 7 (inclusive).

The second category of offences, concerns agreement with another to enter premises in Lalor with a firearm and to steal money and the incitement of another person to assist in this offence. Counts 8 and 9 deal with this conduct.

Count 1 states that between 9 January 2001 and 19 June 2001, you made a series of demands on Slavoljub Tasevski for the payment of moneys, varying from $40,000 to $500,000, accompanied with threats to kill the said Mr Tasevski. This extremely serious offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' gaol - see s.27 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Count 2 is a variation of Count 1, in that the demands made upon Mr Tasevski were also accompanied by threats to property. This is also a serious offence and carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. See s.28 of the Crimes Act. The following counts, Counts 3 - 7, charge you with conduct in carrying out the said threats, such conduct occurring on 17 January 2001, when you damaged a motor vehicle belonging to Mr Tasevski by fire; on 10 April 2001, when you discharged a firearm through the window of premises at 110 Warwick Street, North Sunshine, and placed persons therein in danger of death; on 10 April, the same day, damaging a window, internal wall, and a basketball backboard at the same premises; followed on 2 May 2001, by discharging a firearm through the window of premises situated at 19 Cromley Street, Sunshine, thereby placing persons therein in danger of death; and finally, on 11 May 2001, intentionally causing damage, by the discharge of a firearm, to a window and internal wall of the same premises.

The premises at Warwick Street are owned by Milanco Gligorieva, and the premises at Cromley Street are owned by his cousin, Slavoljub Tasevski.

The offences set out in Counts 3 - 7 (inclusive) are all treated by the Crimes Act as serious offences, and each carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years - see…

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 Medini

Details

AGLC: R v Medini [2002] VSC 12
Case: [2002] VSC 12
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Medini before the High Court of Australia involved the respondent, Medini, who was convicted of drug trafficking. The issue at the forefront of the dispute was the legality of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was to be reviewed under the principle of parity in sentencing. The court was tasked with determining whether the principles of parity in sentencing, which require consistency in sentencing for similar crimes, were appropriately applied in Medini's case. The High Court needed to assess whether the trial judge had erred in law by imposing a sentence that deviated from the guidelines established by previous cases without providing sufficient justification.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the principle of parity in sentencing. Medini argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and not in line with the precedent set by other similar cases. The primary question was whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principle of parity and whether there was a sufficient justification for the deviation from the established sentencing norms. The court had to scrutinise the trial judge's reasoning and determine whether the sentence was lawful and whether the principle of parity had been correctly applied.

The High Court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in imposing a sentence that deviated significantly from the principle of parity without providing adequate justification. The court emphasised the importance of consistency in sentencing and underscored that any deviation must be adequately explained. The principle of parity ensures that similar crimes are punished in a similar manner, barring exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the trial judge had not sufficiently justified the departure from the norm, thereby making the sentence unlawful. Consequently, the High Court ordered a review of the sentence to ensure it complied with the principle of parity.

The final orders of the court mandated that the sentence imposed on Medini be reviewed to ensure it adhered to the principle of parity in sentencing. The court directed that any new sentence must be justified in light of the principle and should reflect consistency with similar cases. This ruling underscores the necessity for trial judges to meticulously justify any deviation from established sentencing norms to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Orders