Legal Research
Cases
Tarasinski v The King

Tarasinski v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 162 10 July 2025

Sentencing

Causation

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0027

BENJAMIN TARASINSKI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Kidd JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	03 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 162
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Tarasinski [2024] VCC 1721 (Judge Cannon)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Trafficking in a drug of dependence – Possession of a drug of dependence – Prohibited person possess firearm – Knowingly deal in proceeds of crime – Where offending committed on parole – Whether cumulation orders amounted to double punishment – Whether sentencing judge erred in approach to totality – Whether sentencing judge erred in consideration of drug quantity – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – No error in sentencing judge’s approach – Sentence not manifestly excessive in the circumstances – Leave refused.

DPP v Bowen (2021) 65 VR 385; Nguyen v The Queen [2019] VSCA 184; DPP v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; Velevski v The Queen [2010] VSCA 90; Zarghami v The Queen [2020] VSCA 74, referred to.

Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; DPP v Johnson (2011) 35 VR 25; Einfeld v The Queen (2010) 200 A Crim R 1; Hogan v The King [2025] VSCA 142 ; Johnson v The Queen [2022] VSCA 228 ; Lago v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 296; Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; DPP v Kelly [2018] NSWCCA 44; R v Pidoto (2006) 14 VR 269; The Queen v Ververis [2010] VSCA 7; Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, applied.

Sentencing Act 1991, s 16(3B).

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr C Hooper
Respondent:		Mr L McAuliffe
Solicitors
Applicants:	A Valos, Ann Valos Criminal Law
Respondent:	A Hogan, Office of Public Prosecutions

KIDD JA:

On 30 October 2024, the applicant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria following his plea of guilty as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm	10 years	15 months	3 months
2	Traffick Drug of Dependence	15 years	3 years	Base
3	Possess a Drug of Dependence	5 years	6 months
4	Possess a Drug of Dependence	5 years	6 months
5	Possess a Drug of Dependence	5 years	6 months
6	Knowingly Deal with Proceeds of Crime	15 years	12 months	6 months
Related Summary Offences
2	Possess Cartridge Ammunition without Licence / Permit	40 penalty units	$500 fine	N/A
9	Breach Prescribed Term / Condition of Parole	30 penalty units or 3 months	2 months
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years and 9 months
Non-Parole Period:		18 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		35 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 5 years Non-Parole Period 3 years
Other Relevant Orders: Forfeiture and disposal orders

The proposed grounds of appeal

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on four grounds, namely:
(1)the learned…

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 Tarasinski v The King

Details

AGLC: Tarasinski v The King [2025] VSCA 162
Case: [2025] VSCA 162
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tarasinski sought leave to appeal against his sentence for drug trafficking, possession of a drug of dependence, possession of a firearm while being a prohibited person, and dealing in the proceeds of crime. The application was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The central issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in their approach to the totality principle, the consideration of drug quantity, and the cumulation of orders, as well as whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court held that there was no error in the sentencing judge's approach to the totality principle, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances. The court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the totality of Tarasinski's offending and imposed a sentence that reflected the cumulative effect of his crimes. Regarding the consideration of drug quantity, the court noted that the sentencing judge had taken into account the quantity of drugs involved, but the overall sentence was not considered excessive. The court also found that the cumulation of orders did not amount to double punishment, as each order was necessary to address a separate aspect of Tarasinski's offending.

Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the totality of a defendant's offending and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Orders