SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | Subasic v Williams | ||
| Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 207 | ||
| Hearing Date: | 17 July 2018 | ||
| Decision Date: | 3 August 2018 | ||
| Before: | McWilliam AsJ | ||
| Decision: | See [52] | ||
| Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether consideration of hardship on dependents. | ||
| Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (AC) s 164 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 214 | ||
| Cases Cited: | Barbaro v The Queen: Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151 | ||
| Parties: | Jeremy Subasic (Appellant) Rhys Williams (Respondent) | ||
| Representation: | Counsel Mr J Silk (Appellant) Mr J De Bruin (Respondent) | ||
| Solicitors Jeffrey Silk, Barrister & Solicitor (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |||
| File Number: | SCA 11 of 2018 | ||
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Special Magistrate Cush Date of Decision: 21 February 2018 Case Title: R v Subasic Citation: CC17/4290; CC17/4291; CC16/7750; CC17/7551; CC17/7875; CC17/7877; CC17/7876 |
The appellant appeals against the severity of a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 21 February 2018. The sentence related to three incidents, resulting in seven separate charges:
(a)4 April 2017 – driving whilst licence suspended (repeat offender) (count 1) and failure to the Road Transport Authority of a change of address (count 2).
(b)6 April 2017 – driving whilst licence suspended (repeat offender) (count 3) and exceeding the speed limit by greater than 15 km/h (count 4).
(c)9 April 2017 – driving with a prescribed drug in oral fluid (repeat offender) (count 5), possession of a drug of dependence for the purpose of sale or supply (count 6) and driving whilst unlicensed (count 7).
In the court below, Special Magistrate Cush (magistrate) imposed fines to the value of $3,000 in respect of counts 1, 2, 4 and 7 (with no time to pay). The magistrate also disqualified the appellant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years in respect of counts 1, 3 and 5, to run concurrently.
Relevant to the appeal, the magistrate also imposed the following sentences of…
Continue reading Subasic v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Subasic v Williams [2018] ACTSC 207
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge failed to give appropriate consideration to the hardship on the appellant's dependents. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed and did not appropriately balance the need for punishment with the potential impact on the appellant's family. The respondent, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, contended that the sentence was appropriate and within the discretion of the trial judge.
The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing in relation to the severity of the sentence and the consideration of mitigating factors such as the impact on dependents. The court noted that while the sentence was indeed lengthy, it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing and the need to balance the interests of the community with those of the offender and his family. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant mitigating factors, including the impact on the appellant's dependents. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [52]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.