Robert James Polosak v Joshua Asfour

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Robert James Polosak v Joshua Asfour

Citation:

[2022] ACTMC 14

Hearing Date(s):

2 June 2022

DecisionDate:

21 June 2022

Before:

Chief Magistrate Walker

Decision:

See [30], [35] – [41]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Offending occurred during existing intensive corrections order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 375(15)(a)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(7)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (‘Sentence Administration Act’) s 7, s 33, s 65, s 79

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42(1)(a)(iii)

Cases Cited:

Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5

R v ER [2022] ACTSC 112

R v Figura (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 162

R v Hoang [2020] ACTSC 262

R v Pahl [2022] ACTSC 113

R v XXL [2022] ACTSC 24

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

Robert Polosak (Informant)

Joshua Asfour (Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors

E Wren (ACT Director of Public Prosecutions)

T Sharman (Tim Sharman Solicitors)

File Number(s):

CC 14481 of 2020

CC 1928 of 2022

CC 1929 of 2022

CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:

  1. The offender is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely cocaine, contrary to section 603 (7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). This offence on conviction carries up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 1,000 penalty units, or a combination of both. He is further charged with possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 42 (1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), namely a gel blaster, whilst not authorised by a license, permit or otherwise, an offence which also carries up to 10 years imprisonment. In respect to each of these offences, the defendant consented to the jurisdiction of this court, limiting the maximum penalty of imprisonment which can be imposed to five years imprisonment or a fine of up to $15,000 pursuant to s375(15)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

  1. The defendant is also charged with possessing a declared substance, being controlled or prescription only medicines, namely clonazepam, diazepam, buprenorphine and fentanyl, without authorisation to possess the substances. This offence attracts a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or a fine of up to 200 penalty units, or a combination of both.

  1. The factual circumstances are uncomplicated. At about 4 a.m. on 18 December 2020, police executed a search warrant at 30/1 Roustabout Street, Lawson where the offender was living.

  1. During the search of his bedroom approximately 35g of cocaine was found inside a Louis Vuitton bag. It has been assessed by the ACT Government Analytical Laboratory as being 28.8% pure, consistent with the offender’s admission at the scene that it would be over 28% pure. Scales were also found in the bag. Clip seal bags with white residue were found in a bedside table drawer. On the floor, a small grinder containing white residue and a plastic bag containing a common cocaine cutting agent, “inositol”, were found.

  1. The following items were also found in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robert James Polosak v Joshua Asfour 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
[2022] ACTMC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert James Polosak was prosecuted for several criminal offences by Joshua Asfour. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Polosak challenged the legality of his sentencing. The central issue was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a sentence on Polosak, who had committed the new offences while serving an intensive corrections order (ICO) for previous convictions. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly taken into account the existing ICO when passing sentence on the new offences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the crimes committed.

The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the relevant case law. It found that the trial judge had indeed considered the existing ICO in the sentencing process, but also identified that there were aspects of the sentence that required adjustment to ensure proportionality and fairness. The court held that while the trial judge had correctly acknowledged the ICO, the sentence needed to be reviewed to address any potential cumulative effect of the penalties imposed. The court concluded that the trial judge's discretion in sentencing was exercised appropriately, but some modifications were necessary to align with the principles of justice and proportionality.

In light of the court's findings, Polosak's sentence was varied to ensure it was proportionate to the crimes committed, taking into account the existing ICO. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to address the cumulative effect of the penalties. This decision ensures that the sentence remains fair and just, reflecting the principles of sentencing under Victorian law. The court's ruling provides clarity on the approach to be taken when sentencing an offender who commits new crimes while serving an ICO.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30], [35] – [41]

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.