R v Sinanovic - [2000] NSWCCA 394

CITATION: R v SINANOVIC [2000] NSWCCA 394

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60641/97

HEARING DATE(S): 4 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Hakija Sinanovic

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Hulme J at 2; Greg James J at 87

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/11/0132

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Horler DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: M Grogan
Appellant: In person

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: In person

DECISION: The appeal against conviction should be dismissed; Leave to appeal against sentence should be granted; Appeal dismissed

- 22 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60641/97
WOOD CJ at CL
HULME J
GREG JAMES J

Monday, 11 December 2000

Regina v Hakija SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT
1 WOOD CJ at CL: I agree with the judgment of Hulme J, and with the orders proposed.
**********
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No: 60641/97

WOOD CJ AT CL
HULME J
GREG JAMES J
Monday, 11 December 2000

REGINA -v- Hakija SINANOVIC
JUDGMENT
2 HULME J: These proceedings are the fourth of five appeals brought by the Appellant against convictions in the District Court. So far as this appeal is concerned, the Appellant was indicted on 19 November 1997 before Acting Judge Horler and a jury on charges:-

1. For that he between 1 October 1991 and 17 April 1992 at Homebush in the State of New South Wales did steal a quantity of travellers cheques the property of Westpac Banking Corporation.
2. For that he between 1 October 1991 and 1 June 1993 at Leichhardt in the State of New South Wales did receive and have a quantity of Westpac Bank Travellers’ cheques the property of Westpac Banking Corporation before then stolen, he the said Hakija Sinanovic, at the time he received the said travellers’ cheques knowing the same to have been stolen.

3. For that he on or about 12 July 1993 at Leichhardt in the State of New South Wales did dispose of Westpac Bank travellers’ cheques of the face value of approximately $60,000 the property of the Westpac Banking Corporation before then stolen, he the said Hakija Sinanovic at the time he disposed of the said travellers’ cheques knowing the same to have been stolen.

4. For that he between 30 April 1993 and 15 June 1993 at Leichhardt in the State of New South Wales did dispose of Westpac Bank travellers’ cheques of the face value of approximately $120,000, the property of the Westpac Banking Corporation before then stolen, he the said Hakija Sinanovic at the time he disposed of the said travellers’ cheques knowing the same to have been stolen.

5. For that he between 30 April 1993 and 15 June 1993 at Leichhardt in the State of New South Wales did dispose of Westpac Bank travellers’ cheques of the face value of approximately $180,000, the property of the Westpac Banking Corporation before then stolen, he the said Hakija Sinanovic at the time he disposed of the said travellers’…

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 Sinanovic

Details

AGLC: R v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 394
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 394
Decision Date: 11 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v. Hakija Sinanovic, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction but granted leave to appeal against sentence. The Appellant, Hakija Sinanovic, was convicted in the District Court of multiple counts of receiving, possessing, and disposing of stolen Westpac Bank travellers’ cheques. The Appellant appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed. The Court found no merit in the grounds of appeal concerning the Appellant's access to legal documents, preparation of defence counsel, and the order in which the trials were conducted. The Court also concluded that the sentences imposed were not outside the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion, even when considering the cumulative effect of previous sentences. However, the Court found an error in the sentencing judge's approach, as he failed to take into account prior convictions and sentences that were the subject of appeal. For this reason, leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal against sentence was ultimately dismissed.

Orders