R v Vodopic - [2003] VSCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 278 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
TONI VODOPIC

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, A.C.J., PHILLIPS and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 October 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 October 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 172

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Kidnapping for ransom – Making a false document – Using a false document – Attempting to gain property by deception – Appeal – Whether “significant personality disorder” should ameliorate sentence – Disorder not amounting to psychiatric illness - General deterrence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence of 10 years for kidnapping with 6½ years non-parole period held not excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr S. Ginsbourg	Richard Edney

WINNEKE, A.C.J.:

I will invite Eames, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

EAMES, J.A.:

On 17 October 2002 a judge of the Supreme Court sentenced the appellant on four counts upon her pleas of guilty. Count 1 was a count of kidnapping with intent to demand payment of money by way of ransom, contrary to s.63A of the Crimes Act 1958, for which she was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, the maximum penalty for the offence being 25 years; on count 2, a count of making a false document contrary to s.83A(1), the sentence was 3 years' imprisonment; on count 3, using a false document contrary to s.823A(2), the sentence was 3 years' imprisonment. The offences on counts 2 and 3 both carried a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment; on count 4, attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to s.81, the sentence was 2 years' imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years. All counts were ordered to be served concurrently, producing a total effective sentence of 10 years. His Honour ordered that 6½ years be served before the appellant became eligible for parole. A period of 874 days pre-sentence detention was declared.

The appellant admitted one prior conviction which was of no significance for current purposes.

Leave to appeal was granted by a judge of the Court on 9 May 2003.

The circumstances of the offences are set out in detail in the remarks on sentencing by the learned sentencing judge. It is not necessary in those circumstances to deal at length with the facts in this case.

The offending conduct occurred on 16 and 17 May 2000 at which time the appellant was aged 37 years. By way of background, in 1999 and 2000 the appellant and her husband, Joseph Vodopic, were engaged in a number of ambitious business ventures. The appellant incorporated companies to pursue what she claimed to be a business in international commodities trading, specifically the trading in oil. In addition she conducted a retail clothing business. The appellant gained investment funds from a Dr Robson to finance the importation of oil. These and related transactions are the subject of separate fraud charges on which the appellant,…

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 Vodopic

Details

AGLC: R v Vodopic [2003] VSCA 172
Case: [2003] VSCA 172
Decision Date: 29 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vodopic involved the appellant, who was convicted for various offences including kidnapping for ransom, making a false document, using a false document, and attempting to gain property by deception. The appellant appealed against the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant’s significant personality disorder, which did not amount to a psychiatric illness, should have been considered as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the overall sentence of 10 years, with a non-parole period of 6½ years, was manifestly excessive, taking into account the need for general deterrence.

The court found that while the appellant’s personality disorder was a relevant factor, it did not justify a significant reduction in his sentence. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases of serious crime and held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court was of the view that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and the appellant’s personal circumstances.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The appellant’s sentence of 10 years for the kidnapping offence, with a non-parole period of 6½ years, was upheld as appropriate given the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders