VODANOVICH -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 196

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 196
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:16/2003	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	STEYTLER J MILLER J PULLIN J	Delivered:	4/08/03
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time granted Leave to appeal granted Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JUSTIN PAUL VODANOVICH THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Drug offences Whether accumulation of sentences offended totality principle Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 6(1)(c)
Case References:	Jarvis v R (1998) 20 WAR 201 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Gavin v R (1992) 6 WAR 195 Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164 Mill v The Queen [1988] 166 CLR 59 Musarri v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980662; 17 November 1998 Pearce v The Queen [1998] 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295 Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 Watt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 354

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : VODANOVICH -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 196 CORAM : STEYTLER J

MILLER J

PULLIN J

HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 16 of 2003 BETWEEN : JUSTIN PAUL VODANOVICH

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Drug offences - Whether accumulation of sentences offended totality principle - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 6(1)(c)

(Page 2)

Result:

Extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted
Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms A G Braddock SC

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant : Andree Horrigan

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Jarvis v R (1998) 20 WAR 201
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465

Case(s) also cited:

Gavin v R (1992) 6 WAR 195
Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164
Mill v The Queen [1988] 166 CLR 59
Musarri v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980662; 17 November 1998
Pearce v The Queen [1998] 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295
Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387
Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999
Watt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 354

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER J: I will ask Miller J to deliver the first set of reasons.

2 MILLER J: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal and for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon the appellant in the District Court of Perth on 22 November 2002. The appellant had been charged on indictment that on 24 May 2000 at Morley…

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 Vodanovich v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vodanovich v The Queen [2003] WASCA 196
Case: [2003] WASCA 196
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was presented with an appeal from the respondent, the Queen, against a decision made by the High Court of Samoa, which quashed a conviction and ordered a retrial. The appellant was convicted in Samoa for drug-related offences and sentenced to a total of eight years in prison. The High Court of Samoa quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial on the basis that the cumulative sentences imposed for drug-related offences offended the totality principle. The central issue before the Court was whether the accumulation of sentences for drug offences violated the totality principle.

The Court considered the principle of totality, which requires that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences should not be disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offender. The Court examined the principles of sentencing in Samoa and the applicable legislation. It was noted that the appellant's sentences were imposed consecutively, which was permissible under Samoan law. The Court held that the cumulative sentences did not offend the totality principle, as the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. The Court concluded that the High Court of Samoa erred in quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.

As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the High Court of Samoa, and restored the appellant's conviction and sentences. The Court also granted an extension of time for the respondent to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Samoa and allowed the respondent leave to appeal to that court. The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted

Application dismissed

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.