R v Novakovic - [2018] ACTSC 331

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Novakovic
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 331
Hearing Date:	30 November 2018
DecisionDate:	30 November 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [19]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – drive motor vehicle without consent – trespass – resist a public official in the exercise of their functions – provide a false name to police – unlawful possession of stolen property
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 211(2)(e) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 308, 311, 318(2), 324(1), 361(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mr Slobodan Novakovic (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K McCann (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 1 of 2018; SCC 2 of 2018; SCC 129 of 2018; SCC 131 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 5 October 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to five counts in an indictment dated 4 October 2018. In addition, he pleaded guilty to four summary charges.

Although two of the pleas of guilty were entered at an early stage, most of them where entered four days before his trial was due to commence. There is some utilitarian value in the pleas. He is entitled to a discount of about 15%.

The counts in the indictment, and their maximum penalties are as follows:

(a)Count 1: burglary (CC 2017/9103), contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $210,000.
(b)Counts 2 and 4: theft (CC 2017/9104; CC 2017/9740), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000.
(c)Count 3: drive motor vehicle without consent (CC 2017/9105), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $75,000.
(d)Count 5: attempt to drive motor vehicle without consent (CC 2017/9744), contrary to 318(2) by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $75,000.

The summary charges, and their respective maximum penalties are:

(a)Unlawful possession of stolen property (CC 2017/9743), contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 6 months and/or a fine of $7,500.
(b)Trespass (CC 2017/7587), contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth). The maximum penalty is fine of $1,500.
(c)Provide a false name to police (CC 2017/7585), contrary to s 211(2)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $500.
(d)Resist a territory official in the exercise of their functions (CC 2017/7584), contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 2 years’…

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 Novakovic

Details

AGLC: R v Novakovic [2018] ACTSC 331
Case: [2018] ACTSC 331
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of the Crown versus Novakovic involved a defendant charged with multiple criminal offences. The defendant was found guilty of burglary, theft, driving a motor vehicle without consent, trespass, resisting a public official, providing a false name to police, and unlawful possession of stolen property. The prosecution sought an appropriate sentence for the defendant's extensive criminal conduct.

The central legal issue before the court was determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant's criminal conduct. The court was required to consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for the sentence to serve purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also needed to balance the defendant's culpability with any mitigating factors that might apply.

The court began by emphasising the gravity of the offences, noting the defendant's persistent criminal behaviour. The court considered the defendant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences, as well as the need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in such conduct. The court also weighed the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's expressions of remorse and the circumstances leading to the offending behaviour. After careful consideration of these factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The final orders of the court were detailed at [19].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]

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.