Legal Research
Cases
R v Petrovic

R v Petrovic

Case [1998] VSCA 95 22 October 1998

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 28 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
ZLATA PETROVIC

---

JUDGES: TADGELL, ORMISTON and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 21 October 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 October 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 95

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Obtaining property by deception, burglary, theft and forgery - Multiple offences - Pathological gambling addiction - Guilty pleas - Factors personal to offender - Retribution and general deterrence - Whether sentences manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Ms R.E. Carlin P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr D.M. Salek Victoria Legal Aid

TADGELL, J.A.:

I shall invite Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now aged 39, was presented on 16 February 1998 before the County Court at Melbourne and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing nine counts of obtaining property by deception (counts 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15), two counts of burglary (counts 3 and 11), two counts of theft (counts 4 and 12) and one count each of forgery (count 5) and uttering (count 6), both contrary to s.67B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The applicant had no prior convictions.
A plea was heard on the same day, during which a clinical psychologist, Dr Peter Cook, was called and gave sworn evidence including a diagnosis that the applicant was a pathological gambler. The learned judge also received a letter dated 15 May 1997 from Ms Susan Gavan, a counsellor with Break Even Problem Gambling Counselling Service.
On 23 February 1998 the learned judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned on count 1 for one month, on count 2 for three months, on count 3 for 12 months, on count 4 for four years, on count 5 for one month, on count 6 for one month, on count 7 for three years, on counts 8, 9, 10 and 13 for 12 months in each case, on count 11 for 15 months, on count 12 for two years, on count 14 for six months, and on count 15 for three months. All terms were to be served concurrently, making a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of three years. The learned judge also made an order for compensation against the applicant pursuant to s.86 of the Sentencing Act 1991 in the sum of $5,078.65 in favour of Kata Jutrisa, and an order for restitution pursuant to s.84 of the Sentencing Act in favour of the ANZ Bank of Australia, in the sum of $5,679.10.

The circumstances giving rise to these offences were as follows. The applicant commenced playing poker machines socially with her husband in 1994. Unfortunately this soon became an addiction, and the applicant consulted a financial adviser late that year. The applicant was made redundant in her position with the Department of Health in May 1995 and from her redundancy…

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 Petrovic

Details

AGLC: R v Petrovic [1998] VSCA 95
Case: [1998] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 22 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Petrovic involved the appellant, Petrovic, who was convicted of various offences including obtaining property by deception, burglary, theft, and forgery. Petrovic appealed against the sentences imposed by the County Court, arguing that they were manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The respondent, the Crown, maintained that the sentences were appropriate and within the bounds of judicial discretion.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of Petrovic's pathological gambling addiction and the mitigating factors presented during sentencing. The court considered whether the sentences adequately balanced the principles of retribution and general deterrence with the personal circumstances of the offender. The appellant's legal team argued that the sentences should be reduced due to the significant impact of Petrovic's gambling addiction on his actions and the fact that he had pleaded guilty, thereby reducing the need for deterrence. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence justified the sentences imposed.

The Court of Appeal carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the County Court had appropriately considered the personal circumstances of Petrovic, including his gambling addiction, but also recognised the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, as they had taken into account both the mitigating factors and the need to uphold the principles of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The court did not alter the sentences imposed by the County Court and affirmed the decisions made. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences remained in place.

Orders