Stjepic v Christian

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.