R v Ristevska - [2022] NSWDC 577

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
Hearing dates: 4 November 2022
Date of orders: 21 November 2022
Decision date: 21 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 years 9 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Supplying less than the commercial quantity of drug — Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime — Participate criminal group
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence —early pela — Past offending of a similar nature — role in supply minimal — Role in criminal group — purposes of criminal group — Care needed as not charged with ongoing drug supply

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen, (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HC 45
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550: [2015] HCA 39
R v Ristevska, unreported, District Court NSW, 21 September 2016

Category: Sentence
Parties: Suzanna Ristevska (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Singh – Astor Legal (for the offender)
J Loosley – Public Prosecutions (NSW) (for the Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/204827; 2021/263991

JUDGMENT – REVISED

Introduction

In September 2016 I sentenced Suzanna Ristevska to an aggregate 3 year and 9 month term of imprisonment for two counts of supplying a prohibited drug: R v Ristevska, unreported, District Court NSW, 21 September 2016. Sadly, Ristevska is before me again for sentence for serious drug related offending.
In the Local Court she indicated she would plead guilty to these offences;

Supplying less than the commercial quantity of Drug – 469 grams of methylamphetamine: s 25 (1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (DM&T Act).

Supplying Less than the Commercial Quantity of Drug – 46 grams of heroin: s 25 (1) DM&T Act.

Knowingly Deal with the Proceeds of Crime – $ 28,245 cash: s 193B Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Participate in a Criminal Group: s 93T Crimes Act 1900.

She adhered to those pleas on 4 November 2022. As the matter went late into the afternoon it was adjourned until today for sentence.
I will reduce the sentences to be to be indicated by 25% to take into account the utilitarian value of her early guilty pleas: 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). I will take care when formulating the aggregate sentence not to reduce the benefit of those pleas.
Ristevska asks that when I sentence her for the criminal group offence, I take into account two other matters: Conduct Drug Premises and Possess a Prohibited Weapon Without a Permit.…

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 Ristevska

Details

AGLC: R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
Case: [2022] NSWDC 577
Decision Date: 21 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ristevska involved the appellant, Ristevska, who was charged with various offences including the supply of a drug in a quantity below the commercial level, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, and participating in a criminal group. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the relevant factors and mitigating circumstances. The court had to navigate through the complex web of charges, weighing the appellant's role in the criminal activities and her involvement in the criminal group against the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The legal issues that the court addressed included the assessment of the appropriate sentence considering the appellant's early plea, her minimal role in the drug supply, and her involvement in the criminal group. The court needed to balance the appellant's role within the criminal group against the purposes for which the group existed, and also determine the significance of her early plea and past offending of a similar nature. Furthermore, the court had to be cautious not to treat the appellant as if she was charged with an ongoing drug supply, given her limited role in the specific offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the appellant's early plea and her minimal role in the drug supply, which resulted in a lesser culpability. However, it also recognised the appellant's involvement in a criminal group and the need to ensure that the sentence served as a deterrent and denunciation against such criminal activities. After considering all the relevant factors, the court determined that an aggregate imprisonment sentence of three years, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the need to balance the appellant's culpability with the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 years 9 months

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ristevska [2022] NSWDC 577
Hearing dates:	4 November 2022
Date of orders:	21 November 2022
Decision date:	21 November 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 years 9 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Supplying less than the commercial quantity of drug — Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime — Participate criminal group SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence —early pela — Past offending of a similar nature — role in supply minimal — Role in criminal group — purposes of criminal group — Care needed as not charged with ongoing drug supply
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246 De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen, (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HC 45 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550: [2015] HCA 39 R v Ristevska, unreported, District Court NSW, 21 September 2016
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Suzanna Ristevska (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: A Singh – Astor Legal (for the offender) J Loosley – Public Prosecutions (NSW) (for the Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/204827; 2021/263991