R v Sailovic-Jeremic - [2011] QCA 211

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sailovic-Jeremic [2011] QCA 211

PARTIES:

R
v
SAILOVIC-JEREMIC, Sasa
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 32 of 2011
DC No 223 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 August 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. That the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of one count of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant orally penetrated the complainant and intended to penetrate her vaginally – where the offences perpetrated by the appellant occurred in circumstances where other males also took advantage of the complainant – where the complainant gave evidence that she “knew of” some of the males involved – where the appellant submitted that the trial judge erred in declining to order a mistrial and/or that the appellant be tried separately to his co-accused – whether the primary judge erred in declining to order a mistrial or separate trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant made admissions to friends at a police station whilst waiting to be interviewed by police – where the appellant submitted that the statements constituted no more than “big noting” amongst the appellant and his friends – where another witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the appellant’s statements to his friends – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – where the complainant gave evidence – where the jury made a request for statements given by the complainant to police – where the primary judge directed the jury as to why no prior inconsistent statements were put to the complainant in court – where the appellant submitted that the primary judge erred in inviting the jury to conclude that the lack of prior inconsistent statements could be treated as strengthening and corroborating the complainant’s oral evidence – where the appellant argued that the primary judge erred in failing to warn the jury as to how to treat the complainant’s evidence of alleged unproven offences committed against her by others at earlier times and having no connection with the offences concerning the appellant – whether the primary judge erred in so directing on prior inconsistent statements and in failing to direct on the relevance of any alleged unproven offences by persons other than the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE…

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 Sailovic-Jeremic

Details

AGLC: R v Sailovic-Jeremic [2011] QCA 211
Case: [2011] QCA 211
Decision Date: 30 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sailovic-Jeremic, was convicted of one count of rape and one count of attempted rape and appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal hinged on several grounds, including the trial judge's refusal to order a mistrial or a separate trial, the safety of the jury's verdict in light of certain admissions made by the appellant, alleged misdirections and non-directions concerning the complainant's evidence, and the excessiveness of the sentence imposed.

The court considered the appellant's submissions regarding the trial judge's refusal to order a mistrial or a separate trial. The court found that the trial judge's decision was within his discretion and did not constitute an error warranting interference. Regarding the appellant's admissions, the court concluded that the jury was properly directed on the weight to be given to such evidence and that the verdict was safe and satisfactory. The court also examined the appellant's arguments concerning the primary judge's directions on prior inconsistent statements and unproven offences. The court found no error in the judge's directions and held that they did not affect the safety of the verdict.

In relation to the sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appellant's submissions that a lesser sentence would have been more appropriate were rejected by the court. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was within the range of appropriate penalties.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The convictions and sentence of five years imprisonment for rape and three years imprisonment for attempted rape, to run concurrently, were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Sailovic-Jeremic [2011] QCA 211
PARTIES:	R v SAILOVIC-JEREMIC, Sasa (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 32 of 2011 DC No 223 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 August 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. That the appeal against conviction be dismissed. 2. That the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was convicted of one count of rape and one count of attempted rape – where the appellant orally penetrated the complainant and intended to penetrate her vaginally – where the offences perpetrated by the appellant occurred in circumstances where other males also took advantage of the complainant – where the complainant gave evidence that she “knew of” some of the males involved – where the appellant submitted that the trial judge erred in declining to order a mistrial and/or that the appellant be tried separately to his co-accused – whether the primary judge erred in declining to order a mistrial or separate trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant made admissions to friends at a police station whilst waiting to be interviewed by police – where the appellant submitted that the statements constituted no more than “big noting” amongst the appellant and his friends – where another witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the appellant’s statements to his friends – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – where the complainant gave evidence – where the jury made a request for statements given by the complainant to police – where the primary judge directed the jury as to why no prior inconsistent statements were put to the complainant in court – where the appellant submitted that the primary judge erred in inviting the jury to conclude that the lack of prior inconsistent statements could be treated as strengthening and corroborating the complainant’s oral evidence – where the appellant argued that the primary judge erred in failing to warn the jury as to how to treat the complainant’s evidence of alleged unproven offences committed against her by others at earlier times and having no connection with the offences concerning the appellant – whether the primary judge erred in so directing on prior inconsistent statements and in failing to direct on the relevance of any alleged unproven offences by persons other than the appellant CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE…