Legal Research
Cases
Saracevic v The Queen

Saracevic v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 212 21 August 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0229

BEMIR SARACEVIC	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	HANSEN and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 August 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 212
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Saracevic (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lacava, 22 April 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Possession of unregistered general category handgun – 18 months with 9 months cumulated on other unrelated offences – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Firearms Act 1996 s 7B(1) – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Grigor Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr C Boyce SC with Ms D I Piekusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HANSEN JA
COGHLAN JA:

The appellant, Bemir Saracevic, appeals against sentence imposed in the County Court on charges across three indictments.

On 18 January 2016, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of blackmail of Keith Tribe and two unrelated charges of recklessly causing injury on Indictment C1309287F.

On 18 February 2016, following a four-day trial, the appellant was found guilty of one charge of blackmail of Lance Pinder on Indictment C1309287C.1.

On 22 February 2016, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of an unregistered general category handgun on Indictment C1309287D.1 (‘the handgun possession charge’). The maximum penalty for a first offence is 7 years’ imprisonment or 600 penalty units.[1]
[1]For a second or subsequent offence, the maximum penalty is 1200 penalty units or 10 years’ imprisonment.

Prior to the commencement of the plea hearing on 3 March 2016, the appellant pleaded guilty to a summary charge of possessing ammunition without licence.

On 22 April 2016, the appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of three years, as follows:

Charge No.	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment C1309287C.1
1	Blackmail [Crimes Act 1958 s 87]	15 y	2 y	1y
Indictment C1309287F
1	Blackmail [As above]	15 y	2 y 6 m	Base
2	Recklessly causing injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 18]	5 y	3 m	-
3	Recklessly causing injury [As above]	5 y	3 m	1 m
Indictment C1309287D.1
1	Possess an unregistered general category handgun [Firearms Act 1996 s 7B(1)]	7 y / 600 pu	18 m	9 m
Summary charge
16	Possess ammunition without licence [ Firearms Act 1996 s 24]	40 pu	$500	-
Total Effective Sentence:		4 y 4 m
Non-Parole Period:		3 y
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		115 days
6AAA Statement:		[Indictments C1309287F and C1309287D.1] 4 y 6 m with non-parole period of 3 y
Other orders: · Forfeiture order · Disposal order

Grounds of appeal

The appellant, having been granted leave to appeal by Priest JA in March 2017, now appeals against sentence on the following grounds:

Ground 1:The individual sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed by the learned sentencing judge on…

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 Saracevic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Saracevic v R [2017] VSCA 212
Case: [2017] VSCA 212
Decision Date: 21 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Saracevic was convicted for possession of an unregistered general category handgun and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with 9 months cumulated on unrelated offences. Saracevic appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate under the relevant statutory provisions.

The court examined the statutory framework, particularly section 7B(1) of the Firearms Act 1996, to understand the parameters for sentencing in cases involving unregistered firearms. The court also considered the principles of sentencing in criminal law, including the need for proportionality and deterrence. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence imposed was within the bounds of what could be considered a just and appropriate punishment for the offence committed.

After considering the arguments presented and the statutory guidelines, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the seriousness of possessing an unregistered firearm but concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and aligned with the broader objectives of criminal sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the lower court.

Orders