Djordjic v The Queen

[2018] VSCA 227

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Cumulation of sentences
5. › Base sentence
6. › Serious offender provisions
7. › Whether s 6E of Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) requires base sentence to be sentence by which offender became serious offender
8. › Whether court 'otherwise directed'
9. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 6B, 6E, 16(1), 16(1A)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Drug offences
4. › Trafficking in large commercial quantity
5. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
6. › Current sentencing practices
7. › General deterrence
8. › Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), s 71(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Guilty plea
4. › Rolled-up charge
5. › Whether judge erred in treating single statutory offence involving two substances as rolled-up charge
6. › Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), s 71(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Serious offender
4. › Serious drug offender
5. › Presumption of cumulation
6. › Displacement of presumption where court 'otherwise directs'
7. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 6B, 6E

Quick Take

Section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) does not require the base sentence to be the sentence by which the offender became a serious offender. Where the court 'otherwise directs' under s 6E, the presumption of cumulation is displaced and the usual practice of selecting the longest sentence on the most serious charge as the base sentence applies, subject to the court taking into account the statutory policy underlying s 6E. The qualified view expressed in Barbat v The Queen [2014] VSCA 202 to the contrary is not to be followed.