R v Sirocic - [2000] NSWCCA 325

CITATION: Regina v Sirocic [2000] NSWCCA 325

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60646/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Chris Julian Sirocic

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Foster AJA at 24; Smart AJ at 25

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DCCrim 99/52/0260

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Christie DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown - C.K. Maxwell QC
Respondent - J.S. Stratton

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent - T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Stated case - Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act
Traffic Act 1909

DECISION: Stated case answered yes

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 60646/99

PRIESTLEY JA
FOSTER AJA
SMART AJ
Friday, 14 April 2000

REGINA v SIROCIC
1 PRIESTLEY JA: This is a case stated by Christie DCJ of the District Court submitting for the determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal two questions of law arising from an appeal to the District Court. The parties to the appeal were the Director of Public Prosecutions, the appellant and Mr C J Sirocic, the respondent. 2 The respondent was on 23 July 1998 at the Local Court at Armidale convicted of driving in a manner dangerous to the public in breach of section 10A(1)(b)(i) of the Traffic Act. This was a major offence as defined by section 2 of the Traffic Act. He was disqualified from driving for two years to 22 July 2000. 3 On 9 June 1999 the respondent pleaded guilty again at the Local Court at Armidale to driving whilst disqualified at Macksville on 5 March 1999. The Magistrate found the offence proved but dismissed the charge pursuant to section 556A of the Crimes Act. The appellant appealed pursuant to section 133F of the Justices Act to the District Court. 4 On 2 September 1999 Christie DCJ upheld the appeal and convicted and sentenced the respondent. The respondent entered into a recognizance of $100 to be of good behaviour for twelve months, and Christie DCJ also disqualified him from driving a motor vehicle for twelve months from 9 June 1999, the day of the Magistrate's decision. 5 At the request of the appellant Christie DCJ then stated a case pursuant to section 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act. The essential facts were those I have already summarised. 6 Christie DCJ stated the grounds of his judgment as follows:

“ In my view the fact this was an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed in the Local Court placed the appeal proceedings into a special category where I do not have to disqualify the respondent from driving a motor vehicle for the statutory period of two years as specified by section 7A(3)(b)(a) of the Traffic Act, 1909. In coming to this view in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Crown, I was not prepared to reject the version of evidence given to the Magistrate by the solicitor for the respondent that…

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 Sirocic

Details

AGLC: R v Sirocic [2000] NSWCCA 325
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 325
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Sirocic, who had been found guilty of a serious criminal offence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the country. The Crown argued that the sentence imposed by the lower court was inadequate given the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Sirocic was manifestly inadequate. The Crown contended that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offence, nor did it adequately serve the purposes of punishment, including general and specific deterrence, and denunciation. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be considered for the crime committed.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court noted that the lower court had taken into account various factors in determining the sentence, including the respondent's background and the circumstances of the offence. However, the court found that the lower court had not adequately considered the need for general deterrence and the seriousness of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and ordered that the matter be remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The court's decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, particularly the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court's order for re-sentencing ensures that the sentence imposed on Sirocic will reflect the seriousness of the offence and serve the purposes of punishment.

Orders