Regina v Pavicevic - [2004] NSWCCA 80

Reported Decision:
144 A Crim R 163

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Pavicevic [2004] NSWCCA 80

HEARING DATE(S): 27/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - principles - Drug Court

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Court Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Ebsworth [2002] NSWCCA 465
R v Henare [2003] NSWCCA 376

PARTIES :
Regina v Dusan Pavicevic

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60470/03

COUNSEL: A Francis - Applicant
P Ingram - Crown

SOLICITORS: B Sandland - Applicant
S Kavanagh - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2001/0045

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Milson DCJ

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60470/03

JAMES J

27 February 2004

Regina v Dusan Pavicevic

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: Dusan Pavicevic has appealed against sentences imposed on him on 11 November 2002 in the Parramatta Drug Court by his Honour Judge Milson. The sentences imposed by Judge Milson on 11 November 2002 were final sentences, imposed pursuant to s 12 of the Drug Court Act (“the Act”), after initial sentences for the same offences had been imposed, an order had been made imposing the conditions of a drug program to be undertaken by the appellant, the execution of the initial sentences had been suspended, the appellant had, for a time, undertaken the drug program, the Drug Court had decided on 6 August 2002 to terminate the appellant’s drug program and the Drug Court had on 11 November 2002 reconsidered the initial sentences.

2 This appeal was originally listed before a bench of three judges constituting the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, the Court drew the parties’ attention to s 5AF(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act , which provides that the power of the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear and determine an appeal under s 5AF is to be exercised by such single judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice may direct. Subsequently, the Chief Justice directed that I should hear and determine this appeal.

3 On 8 May 2001 Judge Milson dealt with the appellant in accordance with s 7 of the Act in relation to fifteen offences to which the appellant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court. The offences consisted of four offences of receiving, two offences of goods in custody, two offences of breaking, entering and stealing, one offence of breaking and entering with intent, two offences of possession of a prohibited weapon, one offence of possession of housebreaking implements, one offence of possession of car breaking implements and two offences of maliciously damaging property. The offences had been committed between 16 May 2000 and 27 December 2000.

4 On 8 May 2001 Judge Milson imposed sentences of imprisonment of six months for all of the offences, except for the two offences, of breaking, entering and stealing and the offence of breaking and entering with intent. For each of the two offences of breaking,…

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 Pavicevic

Details

AGLC: Regina v Pavicevic [2004] NSWCCA 80
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 80
Decision Date: 27 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Pavicevic, the defendant was sentenced by the Drug Court of Queensland. The case revolved around the defendant's involvement in the supply of a significant quantity of illicit drugs. The nature of the dispute was the appropriate sentence to be imposed, considering the defendant's role in the drug supply chain and his personal circumstances. The court was required to balance the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality in sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the statutory sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1992 (Qld). The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and any mitigating factors. The court was also required to consider the specific objectives of the Drug Court, which include addressing the underlying causes of drug-related offending and promoting rehabilitation.

The court began by assessing the seriousness of the offence, noting the substantial quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's role in the supply chain. It then considered the defendant's level of culpability, taking into account his personal circumstances and any mitigating factors. The court found that while the offence was serious, the defendant's level of culpability was not the highest, and there were significant mitigating factors, including the defendant's cooperation with authorities and his expressed remorse. The court ultimately determined that a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and rehabilitation was appropriate. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a focus on rehabilitation, taking into account the objectives of the Drug Court.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of three years, with a non-parole period of two years. The sentence also included a requirement for the defendant to participate in a rehabilitation program as part of his sentence. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances, while also promoting the objectives of the Drug Court.

Orders