Site Logo

Stipkovich v The Queen [2018] WASCA 63

appeal against sentence — attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug offence contrary to ss 307.5 and 11.1(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 14 years’ imprisonment with 11 year non-parole period — co-operation — s 16A(2)(h) — offender and co-offender made substantial admissions at trial — failure to take into account a relevant consideration particularly difficult to make out where no submission made to sentencing judge that should take account of offender’s admissions and sentencing judge presided over trial and aware of admissions — fact sentencing judge did not refer to admissions is inadequate basis to infer failed to take into account — failure to mention a matter that of itself necessarily called for substantial discount might sustain inference that matter not taken into account — offender’s admissions not of that character — in all circumstances open that offender’s admissions not attract any or any substantial weight — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — although offender did not plead guilty judge discussed relationship between guilty plea and rehabilitation — plea of guilty bears favourably on prospects of rehabilitation — mitigating factors such as plea of guilty and other matters bearing favourably on prospects of offender’s rehabilitation may both decrease length of head sentence and decrease proportion that non-parole period bears to head sentence — appeal dismissed
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions