Regina v Cakovski - [2002] NSWSC 1252

Reported Decision:
141 A Crim R 446

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Cakovski [2002] NSWSC 1252

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70022/02

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

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 January 2003

PARTIES :

Regina v Daniel Cakovski

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

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

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 - Credits to be given.

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

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a term commencing on 14 December 2003 and ending on 23 December 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.

- 38 -

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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Cakovski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 1252
Decision Date: 8 January 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Cakovski was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which involved a young offender, Cakovski, who had been charged with the murder of an individual through stabbing during an armed robbery. The victim, a stranger to the offender, sustained multiple wounds in a public place. The central legal issues the court had to address were the nature of the sentence to be imposed on Cakovski, considering he did not have an actual intention to kill, and the balance between general deterrence and other relevant factors such as remorse, contrition, rehabilitation, and the totality of the circumstances.

In examining these issues, the court considered the objective seriousness of the crime, which was significant due to the violent nature of the attack and the public place where it occurred. The court also evaluated Cakovski’s age, his remorse, and potential for rehabilitation. Despite the lack of an actual intention to kill, the court recognised the need for a sentence that serves the purpose of general deterrence while also taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including any special circumstances that might warrant a reduced sentence. The court balanced these considerations, ultimately focusing on the necessity to ensure public safety while also considering Cakovski’s prospects for rehabilitation.

After thorough deliberation, the court decided that a sentence reflective of the crime’s severity was necessary, but it also acknowledged the mitigating factors present. The sentence imposed balanced the need for general deterrence with the potential for Cakovski’s rehabilitation. The court applied the principle of totality, ensuring that all relevant circumstances, including special factors, were considered in the sentencing process. The final orders included a detailed sentence that reflected the court’s careful consideration of all aspects of the case, including appropriate credits for factors such as remorse and contrition.

Orders