Legal Research
Cases
R v Savic

R v Savic

Case [2013] NSWSC 1637 8 November 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Savic [2013] NSWSC 1637
Hearing dates: 23 September 2013
Decision date: 08 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
The Offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 16 years and three months commencing on 21 November 2011 and expiring on 20 February 2028, with a balance of term of five years and three months commencing on 21 February 2028 and expiring on 20 May 2033.
The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release to parole is 21 February 2028.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - Offender (aged 28 years) beats a friend (aged 57 years) to death - attack in victim's home - multiple blows struck to victim's head using various implements as weapons - evidence does not permit finding that victim provoked Offender prior to attack - Offender subject to conditional liberty - late plea of guilty - assessment of risk of reoffending and prospects of rehabilitation - specific and general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Non-Parole Periods) Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Frigiani v R [2007] NSWCCA 81
Melbom v R [2013] NSWCCA 210
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Ng v R [2011] NSWCCA 227; 214 A Crim R 191
Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R v Deng [2007] NSWCCA 216; 176 A Crim R 1
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; 127 A Crim R 369
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Tran v R [2011] NSWCCA 11
Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; 212 CLR 629
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Savic (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr CK Maxwell QC (Crown)
Mr P Winch (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Phillip A Wilkins & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/372745
Publication restriction: ---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

JOHNSON J: The Offender, Daniel Savic, has pleaded guilty to the murder of Michael Goh on 29 September 2011 at Sydenham.

The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life: s.19A Crimes Act 1900. There is a standard non-parole period of 20 years for this crime.

Findings of Fact

It is necessary to make findings of fact with respect to the offence.

The Court may not take disputed facts into account on sentence, in a way that is adverse to the interests of the Offender, unless those facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if there are matters which the Offender relies upon in mitigation…

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 Savic

Details

AGLC: R v Savic [2013] NSWSC 1637
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1637
Decision Date: 08 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Savic involved a 28-year-old offender who brutally beat a 57-year-old friend to death in the victim's home. The offender used various implements as weapons to strike multiple blows to the victim's head. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with sentencing the offender, who had a history of criminal behaviour and was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence. The offender entered a late plea of guilty to the charge of murder.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offender, given the heinous nature of the crime and the offender's background. The court had to consider factors such as the risk of reoffending, the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, and the principles of specific and general deterrence. The evidence did not support a finding that the victim had provoked the offender prior to the attack. The offender had a history of violent behaviour and had been subject to conditional liberty at the time of the offence.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the gravity of the crime and the offender's prior criminal history. The court found that the offender posed a significant risk of reoffending and had limited prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the need for specific deterrence, to prevent the offender from committing further crimes, and general deterrence, to discourage others from engaging in similar violent behaviour. Ultimately, the court imposed a life sentence with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society.

Orders