R v Milan Banic [2018] NSWDC 55
The offences were each in the low range of objective seriousness, but imprisonment was required because of the ongoing drug supply, proceeds of crime and identity information offending, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the absence of any appropriate alternative. The offender's moral culpability was slightly reduced by PTSD and drug addiction, and his remorse, guilty pleas, abstinence in custody and rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence. An aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a 3 year non-parole period was appropriate, with special circumstances to allow longer parole supervision, and the offender was eligible for referral to the Drug Court.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty in the Local Court
- Outcome
- The offender was convicted on each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, and referred to the Drug Court for consideration of a compulsory drug treatment order.
- Legal Topics
- ['supply Prohibited Drug on an Ongoing Basis' 'knowingly Deal With Proceeds of Crime' 'deal With Identity Information' 'plea of Guilty' 'aggregate Sentence' 'drug Court Referral' 'compulsory Drug Treatment Order' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'remorse' 'rehabilitation' 'mental Condition' 'drug Addiction']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty in the Local Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis, knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and eight counts of dealing with identity information after pleas of guilty.' "Whether the offender's PTSD, substance use disorder, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation mitigated sentence." 'Whether no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate.' 'Whether an aggregate sentence and special circumstances were appropriate.' 'Whether the offender should be referred to the Drug Court to determine whether he should be subject to a compulsory drug treatment order.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offences were each in the low range of objective seriousness, but imprisonment was required because of the ongoing drug supply, proceeds of crime and identity information offending, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the absence of any appropriate alternative. The offender's moral culpability was slightly reduced by PTSD and drug addiction, and his remorse, guilty pleas, abstinence in custody and rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence. An aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a 3 year non-parole period was appropriate, with special circumstances to allow longer parole supervision, and the offender was eligible for referral to the Drug Court.
Court Disposition
The offender was convicted on each offence and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, and referred to the Drug Court for consideration of a compulsory drug treatment order.
Orders
- ['For each offence the offender is convicted.' 'I impose an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years. The sentence is to date from 15 November 2016. The non-parole period will expire on 14 November 2019 and the head sentence will expire on 14 May 2021.' 'The offender...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment