R v Slovoc Popovski - [2008] ACTSC 94

R v SLOVOC POPOVSKI
[2008] ACTSC 94 (11 September 2008)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 11 of 2008

Judge: Rares J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 11 September 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 11 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN

v

SLOVOC POPOVSKI

ORDER

Judge:  Rares J
Date:  11 September 2008
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The accused appear before the Court on 30 July 2009 at 9.30am for a directions hearing and in relation to obtaining a pre-sentence report.
The accused appear before the Court on Thursday 10 September 2009 to be sentenced for the offence.
Pursuant to s 27(2) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), sentence be deferred for 12 months until 10 September 2009 on the conditions that the accused:
(a)accept the supervision of the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate);
(b)undertake urinalysis testing from time to time as directed by the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate);
(c)undertake counselling/treatment/programs deemed appropriate by the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate) including any recommended for the management of drug issues.
The accused be granted bail on the condition that he complies with the conditions in Orders 1, 2 and 3 above.
The accused report today, as soon as reasonably possible, to ACT Corrective Services for the purposes of placing himself under its supervision.
The first count in the indictment be dismissed.
The order undertaking and conditions for bail be corrected by changing:
(a)the offence so as to record “Possessing a drug of dependence, namely, cocaine” and to delete “Traffici [sic] in a Controlled Drug other than Cannabis”;
(b)bail conditions 1-3 be deleted and there be substituted conditions (a), (b) and (c) in Order 3 above;
(c)bail condition 4 be deleted and there be substituted Order 5 above.

(see also R v Slovoc Popovski (No 2) [2008] ACTSC 95, 12 September 2008)

Mr Popovski you have obviously realised that your conduct in entering into a relationship with people who are using drugs, whether recreationally or more seriously for their own use has blighted your life, and blighted your family’s life. It has brought shame on you, and it has brought shame on your mother and on your sister.

Your mother worked very hard, no doubt, to give you the opportunities in life which you have, and having heard the evidence before me today, I am satisfied that you have obviously made a mistake, which you understand to have been a mistake. But, the quantity of drug that you were caught with and arrested and charged for, is a very large amount of drugs, and while you may have been able to afford it, if it were not for the circumstances of this offence you may have been looking to be in gaol this afternoon. It was just an act of stupidity to stay involved in drugs.

You have seen through your own involvement that your use escalated from…

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 Slovoc Popovski

Details

AGLC: R v Slovoc Popovski [2008] ACTSC 94
Case: [2008] ACTSC 94
Decision Date: 11 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slovoc Popovski involved the defendant, Slovoc Popovski, who was charged with drug-related offences. The proceedings took place before a court in Australia, where the defendant faced charges including possession of a drug of dependence and trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis. The dispute centred on the validity and applicability of the charges against Popovski, as well as the appropriate sentencing and bail conditions.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the charges laid out in the indictment accurately reflected the alleged criminal conduct, and if so, whether these charges were supported by the evidence presented. The court also had to determine the appropriate bail conditions that would ensure Popovski's appearance in court while managing any risk of reoffending or flight. Additionally, the court needed to consider the sentencing guidelines applicable under the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), particularly in light of the defendant's compliance with certain conditions that could influence the final sentencing decision.

In its reasoning, the court examined the indictment and found that the first count related to trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis was not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed this count. Regarding bail, the court determined that Popovski should be granted bail but under strict conditions to ensure his compliance with supervision and treatment programs. The court ordered that Popovski accept supervision from ACT Corrective Services, undergo regular urinalysis testing, and participate in any recommended counselling or treatment programs for drug issues. The court also deferred sentencing for 12 months to allow Popovski to demonstrate his compliance with these conditions.

The final orders of the court mandated that Popovski appear for a directions hearing and sentencing on specified dates, required him to report to ACT Corrective Services for supervision, and set out detailed conditions for his bail. The court also corrected the indictment and bail conditions to reflect the accurate charge and appropriate conditions for his supervision and treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The accused appear before the Court on 30 July 2009 at 9.30am for a directions hearing and in relation to obtaining a pre-sentence report.

2. The accused appear before the Court on Thursday 10 September 2009 to be sentenced for the offence.

3. Pursuant to s 27(2) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), sentence be deferred for 12 months until 10 September 2009 on the conditions that the accused:

(a) accept the supervision of the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate);

(b) undertake urinalysis testing from time to time as directed by the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate);

(c) undertake counselling/treatment/programs deemed appropriate by the Executive Director of ACT Corrective Services (or his delegate) including any recommended for the management of drug issues.

4. The accused be granted bail on the condition that he complies with the conditions in Orders 1, 2 and 3 above.

5. The accused report today, as soon as reasonably possible, to ACT Corrective Services for the purposes of placing himself under its supervision.

6. The first count in the indictment be dismissed.

7. The order undertaking and conditions for bail be corrected by changing:

(a) the offence so as to record ?Possessing a drug of dependence, namely, cocaine? and to delete ?Traffici [sic] in a Controlled Drug other than Cannabis?;

(b) bail conditions 1-3 be deleted and there be substituted conditions (a), (b) and (c) in Order 3 above;

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.