Zdravkovic v The Queen

Case [2016] ACTCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Zdravkovic v The Queen

Citation:

[2016] ACTCA 53

Hearing Date:

10 August 2016

DecisionDate:

20 October 2016

ReasonsDate:

20 October 2016

Before:

Murrell CJ, Elkaim and Ross JJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – whether sentence is manifestly excessive – attempting to obtain property by deception – being knowingly concerned in possession of drug of dependence with intent to sell or supply – application of Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 – accumulation of sentences – non-parole period

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 20, 45, 332, 600, 602, 603, pt 6
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) ss 162, 164, 169, 171, pt 10, Dictionary

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 5101, 5111, 5137, 5138

Cases Cited:

Balthazaarv The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38
Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Dinsdalev The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Gas v The Queen [2004] HCA 22; 217 CLR 198
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 78 ALJR 616
Markarianv The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59
Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242; 219 A Crim R 104
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Pham v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 244
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383
R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
R v Hoang [2015] ACTSC 138
R v Kilicaslan [2015] ACTSC 39
R v Mahoney [2000] NSWCCA 256
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Schero (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Higgins CJ, 19 July 2012)
R v Truong [2015] ACTSC 244
R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18

Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9

Parties:

Peter Zdravkovic (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr D Dalton SC (Appellant)

Mr J White SC (Respondent)

Solicitors

Kamy Saeedi Law (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 56 of 2015

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Supreme Court of the ACT

Before:  Robinson AJ

Date of Decision:         16 December 2015

Case Title:  R v Zdravkovic

Citation: [2015] ACTSC 393

THE COURT:

Sentences

  1. The appellant appealed against sentences imposed by Robinson AJ (the sentencing judge) on 16 December 2015.  The appellant was sentenced for four offences arising from two incidents.

  1. The sentencing judge imposed a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment and set a non-parole period of 14 months’ imprisonment.  The sentences are detailed in the following table.

Count Incident Date/s Charge Maximum Penalty Sentence
1

Continue reading Zdravkovic v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Case
[2016] ACTCA 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zdravkovic appealed against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for the offences of attempting to obtain property by deception and being knowingly concerned in the possession of a drug of dependence with intent to sell or supply.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the principles concerning the accumulation of sentences and the determination of a non-parole period. The appellant also sought to rely on the decision in *Bui v The Queen* [2015] ACTCA 5.

The Court of Appeal considered the totality of the offending conduct and the sentencing objectives. It applied the principles established in *Bui v The Queen*, which affirmed that when imposing cumulative sentences, a sentencing judge must consider the overall impact of the sentences on the offender and ensure that the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. The court found that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.