Legal Research
Cases
R v Sladic

R v Sladic

Case [2014] ACTSC 56 13 February 2014

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v JANNA MAREE SLADIC
[2014] ACTSC 56 (13 February 2014)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentencing – Breach of good behaviour order – Deferred sentencing order

Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 160
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 86
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 31, 118
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), s 11
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32(2)(a)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 311, 324(1)

Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
R v Calvert [2014] ACTSC 41
R v Hathaway (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, 11 December 2006)
R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320
R v Sladic (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 14 December 2012)
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 46 of 2012

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 13 February 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 46 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
JANNA MAREE SLADIC

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  13 February 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

That Ms Sladic breached the good behaviour order made on 14 December 2012.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Ms Sladic not be re-sentenced at this time.

CADAS Reports be prepared for 12 August 2014 and 6 February 2015.

Ms Sladic be released on bail on the following conditions:

a) That she appear for sentence on 6 February 2015 at 9:30 am;

b) that she accept supervision by the Director-General or the Director-General’s delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise her;

c) that she be released into the company of her father, Joseph Sladic, and reside, from 13 February 2014, at 29 Braine Street, Page, and not leave those premises except in accordance with these bail conditions;

d) that she travel, on 14 February 2014, to Surfers Paradise in the company of the Reverend Bob Prior and admit herself to Surfcity Transformations at 2 Monaco Street, Surfers Paradise;

e) that, if for any reason, she is not admitted to Surfcity Transformations, she must report within two working days to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for reconsideration of the bail;

f) that she remain in the program, save for the requirement to attend court, and obey all reasonable directions in respect of the program and not terminate or absent herself from the program without prior permission from the Supreme Court;

g) That she appear on 12 August 2014 at 9:30 am for bail review.

In Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [89], I said:
... In my view, it can be accepted that drug addiction is such that it can take a number of failed attempts at rehabilitation before it is successful. It is hard work and no short cut or quick fix. It can take some time, and some failures, before an offender addict…

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 Sladic

Details

AGLC: R v Sladic [2014] ACTSC 56
Case: [2014] ACTSC 56
Decision Date: 13 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sladic involved the defendant, Sladic, who had previously been convicted of an offence and was subject to a good behaviour order. Sladic breached this order, leading to the current proceedings. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the breach, as well as consider any potential implications for a previously deferred sentence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the breach of the good behaviour order warranted a new sentence and if this breach should influence the previously deferred sentence. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality and consistency.

The court found that the breach of the good behaviour order was significant and warranted a new sentence. It noted that the breach demonstrated a lack of remorse and a disregard for the legal system. The court considered the breach in the context of the original offence and the deferred sentence. It decided that a new sentence was necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system and to deter future breaches. The court also considered the defendant's previous criminal history and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The court ordered that Sladic be sentenced to a period of imprisonment for the breach of the good behaviour order, with the sentence to run concurrently with the previously deferred sentence. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of breaching such orders. The specific terms of the new sentence and the conditions of the good behaviour order were detailed in the judgment.

Orders