R v Vidovich - [2002] QCA 422

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vidovich [2002] QCA 422

PARTIES:

R
v
VIDOVICH, Robert Zeljko
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 182 of 2002
DC No 246 of 2002
DC No 247 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

10 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where applicant convicted of 52 counts of stalking – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed – whether sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the applicant’s plea of guilty to an ex officio indictment and its effect in facilitating the administration of justice

COUNSEL:

J D Farmer for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in respect of 37 counts of unlawful stalking with a circumstance of aggravation and 15 counts of unlawful stalking simpliciter.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment charging him with the 52 counts on the 9th of May 2002 at the Southport District Court.

On counts 1 to 4 and 9, 26 to 28, 31, 35, 39, 41 to 43, 46 and 49 to 52, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. On all of those counts the maximum penalty was five years, in respect of the first four because they occurred before amendment of the Criminal Code to increase the penalty, and the others because they involved stalking simpliciter.

In respect of all of the remaining counts he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment which was the maximum penalty, to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to a month's imprisonment in respect of one count of possession of tainted property.

He was recommended for post prison community based release after serving three years of his sentence. Two hundred and thirty-three days were declared as pre-sentence custody and an order was made restraining him from having contact with any of the complainants for 10 years.

The applicant was born on 23 August 1959 and was aged between 38 and 42 years over the various times of the offences. The stalking offences to which he pleaded guilty were committed over a period of approximately three and a half years from April 1998 to September 2001.

There were 52 complainants ranging in age from 16 years to 83 years, most of them being aged between 35 and 50.

The conduct which constituted the offences is set out in a schedule contained…

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 Vidovich

Details

AGLC: R v Vidovich [2002] QCA 422
Case: [2002] QCA 422
Decision Date: 10 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vidovich, the applicant was convicted of 52 counts of stalking and sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. The application was made to the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the applicant's plea of guilty and its impact on the administration of justice. The legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing and the appropriate weight to be given to a plea of guilty, particularly when it is made to an ex officio indictment.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case, focusing on the significance of the applicant's plea of guilty. It considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the extent to which the plea should have influenced the sentence. The court also assessed the submissions made by the applicant, which emphasised the importance of the guilty plea in facilitating the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentencing judge had given sufficient consideration to the plea of guilty and its effect, thereby upholding the sentences imposed.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning behind this decision was grounded in the court's assessment that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the factors relevant to the applicant's plea and the nature of the offences. The court found that the sentences were commensurate with the seriousness of the stalking offences and the principles of justice, thus affirming the original sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Vidovich [2002] QCA 422
PARTIES:	R v VIDOVICH, Robert Zeljko (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 182 of 2002 DC No 246 of 2002 DC No 247 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	10 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 October 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where applicant convicted of 52 counts of stalking – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed – whether sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the applicant’s plea of guilty to an ex officio indictment and its effect in facilitating the administration of justice
COUNSEL:	J D Farmer for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent