Regina v Cakovski - [2003] NSWSC 1

CITATION: Regina v Cakovski [2003] NSWSC 1

HEARING DATE(S): 6.9.02, 25.10.02, 17.12.02, 8.1.03

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 January 2003

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a term commencing on 14 December 2003 and ending on 23 September 2020 with a non-parole period commencing on 14 December 2003 and ending on 23 September 2014, on which date the prisoner will become eligible for parole.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Murder - Stabbing - Multiple wounds - 19 year old offender - No actual intention to kill - Killing in course of armed robbery - Killing in public place - Victim a stranger - Objective seriousness of crime - General deterrence - Remorse, contrition - Rehabilitation - Totality - Special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 19A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21(1), (2); 21A(1), (2); 24A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 (No 90, 2002), s3
Listening Devices Act 1984
Children's Criminal Proceedings Act 1987, ss 15(3), 33

CASES CITED: Regina v Storey (1997) 89 A Crim R 519
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 90 A Crim R 587 at 592
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
Regina v D.A.R (NSWCCA, 8 November 1995, unreported)
Regina v Bell (NSWCCA 29 September 1997, unreported)
Regina v Watt (NSWCCA 2 April 1997, unreported)
Boyle (1987) 34 A Crim R 202
Wirth (1976) SASR 291
T (1989) 47 A Crim R 29
Tilley (1991) 53 A Crim R 1
GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
Wilcox (NSWSC, 15 August 1979, unreported)
Bellavia (NSWSC, 16 August 1980, unreported)
Webster (NSWCCA, 15 July 1991, unreported)
Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
Verney (NSWCCA, 23 March 1993, unreported)
HAS (NSWCCA, 13 August 1998, unreported)
Mihilovic & ors (NSWSC, 15 April 1991, unreported)
Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
Moore v Fingleton (1972) 3 SASR 164
Mill v The Queen (1986) 166 CLR 59 at 62-66
Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517

PARTIES :
Regina v Daniel Cakovski

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70022/02

COUNSEL: Mr Paul Lynch - Crown
Mr W Terracini SC/Mr R Pontello - Accused

SOLICITORS: Julian Schimmel - DPP Sydney - Crown
Albert A Macri Partners, Liverpool - Accused

- 32 -

O’Keefe J

8 January 2003

70022/02 REGINA v CAKOVSKI

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

BACKGROUND

1 On 3 July 2002 a jury convicted Daniel Cakovski (the prisoner) of having murdered Eugene Petroff (the deceased) at Strathfield on 20 May 2001. At the material time the prisoner was 19 years old; the deceased 53 years old.

2 The events which resulted in the death of the deceased took place between 5am and 5.30am with death ensuing a short time later some time later as a result of the infliction by the prisoner of four stab wounds in the chest of the deceased; three to the left of the sternum, one to the right, but all fairly central. The knife with which the wounds were inflicted had a blade that was a little over 10cm in length. Two…

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 Regina v Cakovski

Details

AGLC: Regina v Cakovski [2003] NSWSC 1
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1
Decision Date: 8 January 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Cakovski, the respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The appeal was against the length of the non-parole period. The appellant was 19 years old at the time of the offence, having been born in 1999. He pleaded guilty to the murder of a stranger in the course of an armed robbery in a public place. The victim was stabbed multiple times, and the appellant did not have an actual intention to kill. The appellant was remorseful, and this was taken into account by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the non-parole period was excessive. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider the totality principle, which required the non-parole period to be balanced against the appellant's youth, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate, given the objective seriousness of the crime, the need for general deterrence, and the fact that the killing occurred in a public place. The court considered the appellant's age, his remorse, and his prospects of rehabilitation, but also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the crime.

The court held that the sentence was not excessive. The appellant was a young man who committed a heinous crime, but he was remorseful and had prospects of rehabilitation. However, the court emphasised the need for general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the crime. The court held that the sentence was appropriate, given the totality of the circumstances. The court also noted that the appellant had a criminal history, which was a factor that weighed against him. The court held that the sentence was not excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders