SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Zeremes & Zeremes [2003] QCA 255 PARTIES: R
v
ZEREMES, Dimitri
ZEREMES, Tina
(applicants)FILE NO/S: CA No 135 of 2003 CA No 136 of 2003 SC No 361 of 2002 SC No 450 of 2002 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application ORIGINATING
COURT:Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED EX 18 June 2003 TEMPORE ON: DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 18 June 2003 JUDGES: Davies and Williams JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order madeORDER: In each case, application for leave to appeal against
sentence dismissedCATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where applicants pleaded guilty to drug related offences - where neither applicant had substantial previous criminal history - where applicants produced methylamphetamine in sophisticated and commercial laboratory - where applicants trafficking in methylamphetamine while on bail - where applicants co-operated with police in search - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive COUNSEL: A J Rafter for applicants
S Bain for respondentSOLICITORS: N R Barbi for applicants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent
DAVIES JA: These are applications against sentences imposed on each of the applicants in the Supreme Court on 9 April this year upon pleas of guilty by each of them. The applicant, Dimitri Zeremes pleaded guilty on two counts on one indictment, and one count on a second indictment. Count 1 was that between 1 January 2001 and 10 January 2001 he produced a dangerous drug, namely amphetamine. Count 2 was that between those dates he was in possession of things used in connection with producing that drug.
The count on the second indictment was that between 24 February 2001 and 9 August 2001, he trafficked in a dangerous drug which was also, as it turns out, amphetamine. On the offence of trafficking he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. On the production offence he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. No further penalty was imposed in respect of the other offence. A recommendation for post prison community based release after three years was made, as also was a declaration that 606 days in custody from 10 August 2001 to 9 April 2003 was time already served under the sentence.
The applicant, Tina Zeremes was the first applicant's wife, Tina is 32. Neither has a substantial previous criminal history. Dimitri was sentenced for possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a pipe and some minor offences on 12 March 1997 and fined $780. No conviction was recorded on that occasion. Then on 26 September 1997 he was sentenced in respect of offences which included possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a thing used in connection with smoking a dangerous drug, and supplying a dangerous drug in respect of which he was convicted and fined $900.
pleaded guilty to each of the…
Continue reading R v Zeremes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Zeremes [2003] QCA 255
- Case
- [2003] QCA 255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the circumstances of the offence, the sophistication of the drug production facility, and the applicants' conduct while on bail warranted the sentences imposed. Additionally, the court considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicants argued that their cooperation with police and the absence of a significant criminal record should have been mitigating factors.
The court thoroughly examined the sentencing principles and the particular circumstances of the case. It determined that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the sophistication of the drug production, and the applicants' conduct while on bail. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the sentences reflected the seriousness of the crime. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed in both cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
In each case, 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.