Regina v Vickovic - [2006] NSWCCA 231

CITATION: Regina v Vickovic [2006] NSWCCA 231

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Hidden J at 58

DECISION: CROWN APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - DRUG COURT - CROWN APPEAL AGAINST FINAL SENTENCE - RESPONDENT "GOLD MEDAL" GRADUATE FROM DRUG COURT PROGRAMME - NON CUSTODIAL IMPOSITIONS - SUCH IMPOSITIONS NOT MANDATORY BUT NO MISCARRIAGE OF SENTENCING DISCRETION IN SO ORDERING - DISCUSSION CONCERNING APPEALS FROM DRUG COURT

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Court Act 1998

CASES CITED: Everett v The Queen 1994 181 CLR 295
Griffiths v The Queen 1977 137 CLR 293
Malvaso v The Queen 1989 168 CLR 227
R v Ohar 2004 59 NSWLR 596
R v Sheedy, unreported, Drug Court, 17 February 2003
R v Toman [2004] NSWCCA 31
R v Trindall 2002 133 A Crim R 119

PARTIES: Regina v Tommy Vickovic

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2132

COUNSEL: P. Ingram (Crown/Appellant)
G. Bashir with M. Moody (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S. O'Connor (Legal Aid)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Drug Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2004/107

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Barnett

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24/01/05
12/09/05

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: N/A

2005/2132

GILES JA
GROVE J
HIDDEN J
3 August 2006

REGINA v TOMMY VICKOVIC

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Grove J.

2 GROVE J: This is a Crown appeal, the notice of appeal in respect of which asserted a single ground that sentence imposed by “his Honour Judge Barnett, a judge of the District Court of New South Wales, at Parramatta Drug Court on 12 September 2005” is manifestly inadequate. The notice specified the appearance of the respondent, Tommy Vickovic, for final sentence on twenty six charges to which he had pleaded guilty. The notice recorded that on twenty of these he was sentenced to “Section 9 bond for six months with supervision” and on the remaining six to “Section 9 bond for two years with supervision”. A bond to be of good behaviour for a term not exceeding five years may be ordered in lieu of imposition of imprisonment pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the Sentencing Act).

3 It is necessary to trace some history of the dealing with the offences. On 1 July 2004 the respondent appeared before Judge Milson at the Drug Court, Parramatta. His Honour detailed the proceedings:

“The offender before the Court is being sentenced by the Drug Court exercising the jurisdiction of the District Court in respect of six matters which are upon indictment which was preferred today and to which the offender pleaded guilty, and taking into account a number of other matters on a form 1 which was initially presented to the District Court at Parramatta on 11 March 2003, but is now being taken into account in respect of these offences, rather than other offences which were then before that…

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 Vickovic

Details

AGLC: Regina v Vickovic [2006] NSWCCA 231
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 231
Decision Date: 3 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Vickovic, the respondent, who had graduated from a drug court program, appealed against his sentence following a conviction for drug-related offences. The sentencing judge had ordered a non-custodial sentence, which the Crown contested as too lenient, arguing for a custodial sentence. The appeal focused on the discretion of the court in sentencing and the appropriateness of non-custodial sentences for serious drug offenders.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that constituted a miscarriage. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the principles guiding sentencing, particularly in the context of drug court programs, and whether the non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offences. The court also examined whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

In determining the appeal, the court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in exercising his discretion. The non-custodial sentence was deemed appropriate given the respondent's successful completion of the drug court program and the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration. The court emphasised that while non-custodial sentences are not mandatory, they can be justified in cases where the offender has demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sentencing judge's decision.

Orders