Legal Research
Cases
Stojanovski v R

Stojanovski v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 334 20 December 2013

Appeal

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Supply of Prohibited Drugs

Possession of Prohibited Weapon

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Stojanovski v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 334

Hearing Date(s): 3 December 2013

Decision Date: 20 December 2013

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Simpson J at [2]; Johnson J at [47]

Decision:
(i) Leave to appeal each sentence granted;
(ii) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - severity - pleas of guilty - supply prohibited drugs - cannabis and methylamphetamine - possession of a prohibited weapon - whether sentencing judge erred when determining objective seriousness of offending - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account quantity of drugs involved in supply - whether sentencing judge failed to take into account remorse shown by applicant - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - no error found - leave to appeal each sentence granted - appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Cases Cited: Cherdchoochatri v R [2013] NSWCCA 118; 277 FLR 126

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Bill Stojanovski (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
T Edwards (Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Stewart (Applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/143085

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Maiden DCJ

- Date of Decision: 11 December 2012

- Court File Number(s): 2011/143085

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Simpson J.
SIMPSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of three sentences imposed upon him in the District Court at Newcastle on 11 December 2012 following his pleas of guilty to three counts on a Court Attendance Notice.
The charges to which the applicant pleaded guilty were:
(i)two counts of supplying prohibited drugs (cannabis and methylamphetamine);
(ii)one count of possession or use of a prohibited weapon (a "stun gun") without a permit.
By s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 the cannabis offence exposed the applicant to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years; by the same section, the methylamphetamine offence exposed the applicant to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 15 years; and by s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 the prohibited weapon offence exposed him to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years. Pursuant to Pt 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("the Sentencing Procedure Act") a standard non-parole period of 3 years is prescribed in respect of that offence.
In respect of the charge of supply of methylamphetamine, Maiden DCJ imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years, with a non-parole of 2 years, commencing on 11 January 2012; in respect of the offence of supply of cannabis, he imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months, commencing on 11 October 2012, and therefore accumulated by 9 months on the previous sentence; in respect of the prohibited weapon charge, he imposed a…

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 Stojanovski v R

Details

AGLC: Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 334
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stojanovski v R involved the applicant, Stojanovski, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including the supply of prohibited drugs, specifically cannabis and methylamphetamine, as well as possession of a prohibited weapon. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the severity of the sentences imposed by the lower court and whether the sentencing judge had erred in various respects.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offending, whether the quantity of drugs involved in the supply had been properly considered, and if the judge had failed to take into account the remorse shown by the applicant. Additionally, the court was asked to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's approach and found no error in the determination of the objective seriousness of the offending. The court held that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the quantity of drugs, and that there was no basis to conclude that the judge had failed to take into account the remorse shown by the applicant. The court also determined that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal each sentence was granted.

Orders