Legal Research
Cases
Ruvinovski v The Queen

Ruvinovski v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 398 15 December 2000

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: RUVINOVSKI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 398

CORAM: KENNEDY ACJ
IPP J
ANDERSON J

HEARD: 24 JULY 2000

DELIVERED : 15 DECEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CCA 138 of 1999

BETWEEN: VLADO RUVINOVSKI
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Attempt to obtain possession of a prohibited import (ecstasy) being not less than the commercial quantity - Applicant regarded by sentencing Judge as a "collector" - Sentence of 13 years not set aside as excessive - Non-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months

Legislation:

Crimes Act1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 16G, s 19AA(1)

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 95

Result:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
Non-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R Richter QC
Respondent: Mr H G Dembo & Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Applicant: Papanicolaou & Antoniou
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Diefenbach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 4
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383
Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 71
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Oliver (1982) 7 A Crim R 174
Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273

Case(s) also cited:

Lim v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997
R v Anderson [1981] VR 155
R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488
R v Laurentiu (1992) 63 A Crim R 402
R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
R v Piercey [1971] VR 647
R v Robertson (1989) 44 A Crim R 224
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359

KENNEDY ACJ: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Anderson J. I am fully in agreement with his Honour's reasons and with the orders proposed by him.
IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Anderson J. I am in agreement with those reasons and have nothing further to add.
ANDERSON J: The applicant was presented in this Court on 17 May 1999, together with one Punevski, on an indictment jointly charging them:
" … that on the 1st day of April 1998 at Perth … [they] without reasonable excuse, attempted to obtain possession of a prohibited import to which section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applies which had been imported into Australia in contravention of that Act namely, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of [ecstasy] being not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that narcotic substance, contrary to…

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 Ruvinovski v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ruvinovski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 398
Case: [2000] WASCA 398
Decision Date: 15 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Ruvinovski v The Queen involved a challenge against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant had been found guilty of attempting to obtain possession of a prohibited import, specifically ecstasy, in quantities that were not less than commercial. The sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of 13 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was excessive given the circumstances of the case. The primary focus of the appeal was the length of the non-parole period.

The legal issues that the court was required to address were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the non-parole period was appropriate. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the principles of sentencing. It also needed to examine whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles and if the sentence was disproportionate to the offence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors. The court recognised that the applicant was a "collector" of the prohibited substance but held that this did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The High Court noted that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the offence, the applicant's role, and the need for deterrence. The court did, however, consider that the non-parole period was excessive and reduced it from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months. This decision was based on the court's assessment that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the non-parole period did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence of 13 years imprisonment was upheld, but with a reduced non-parole period of 6 years and 8 months. The court's decision highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the individual circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate non-parole period.

Orders