Legal Research
Cases
Stjepic v Christian

Stjepic v Christian

Case [2005] WASC 193 30 August 2005

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

General Deterrence

Community Concern

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

STJEPIC -v- CHRISTIAN [2005] WASC 193

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 193
Case No:	SJA:1026/2005	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2005
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	30/08/05
No of pages:	29	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS STJEPIC CRAIG ANTHONY CHRISTIAN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Firearms offences Offender convicted on plea of guilty of aggravated possession of a firearm without being the holder of a licence or permit and possession of ammunition without being the holder of a licence or permit Offender sentenced on firearm offence to 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months Whether sentence manifestly inadequate Whether suspended sentence was inappropriate in all the circumstances
Legislation:	Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1)
Case References:	Dabag v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASC 140 Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 Hall v Collins [2003] WASCA 74 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Malatesta v Pinch [2001] WASCA 224 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213 Mercanti v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASC 122 R v Liddington, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970614; 14 November 1997 R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Van Thong Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA, SCt of WA ; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Attenborough v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 132 Groom v The Queen [1999] 2 VR 159

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : STJEPIC -v- CHRISTIAN [2005] WASC 193 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2005 DELIVERED : 30 AUGUST 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1026 of 2005 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS STJEPIC

Appellant

AND

CRAIG ANTHONY CHRISTIAN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR D N JONES SM

File No : PE 12045 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Firearms offences - Offender convicted on plea of guilty of aggravated possession of a firearm without being the holder of a licence or permit and possession of ammunition without being the holder of a licence or permit - Offender sentenced on firearm offence to 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months - Whether sentence manifestly inadequate - Whether suspended sentence was inappropriate in all the circumstances

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S E Stone & Mr C G Astill

Respondent : Mr D Grace QC & Mr L M Levy

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Laurie Levy & Associates

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

Dabag v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASC 140
Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284
Dinsdale v The…

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 Stjepic v Christian

Details

AGLC: Stjepic v Christian [2005] WASC 193
Case: [2005] WASC 193
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Douglas Stjepic appeals against the sentence imposed by the sentencing Magistrate on a charge of aggravated possession of a firearm without a licence or permit, under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA). The appeal is against the sentence of imprisonment for 9 months suspended for 18 months. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the suspension of the term of imprisonment was inappropriate in all the circumstances. The appeal raises the question of the appropriate approach to sentencing for firearm offences since the recent changes in the Firearms Act, as well as the question of the application of the standard for the reasons given by sentencing officers in the position of the sentencing Magistrate in this case. The court first considered the charges the respondent faced and the sentences he received. It then turned to consider the two grounds of appeal. The court concluded that the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment was manifestly inadequate in this case and that a significantly longer sentence was called for in the sound exercise of sentencing discretion. It concluded that the appeal against the sentence of 9 months should be upheld. The court then considered the appeal against the suspension of the sentence. It concluded that the sentencing Magistrate, in the remarks on sentencing, did indeed recognise the seriousness of the respondent's offending and the importance of general deterrence in this case. However, it concluded that the decision to suspend the term of imprisonment was not manifestly inadequate, that is, outside the range of the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion which would have indicated such an error. The court concluded that the appeal against the suspension of the sentence should not be upheld. The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months quashed and in lieu of that sentence a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months imposed.

Orders