Rasic, Barisa Joseph v The Queen [1983] FCA 329

Rasic, Barisa Joseph v The Queen [1983] FCA 329

The refusal to fix a non-parole period was an error of principle as the relevant legislation presumes in favour of such a period unless inappropriate. Given the appellant's age, prospects for rehabilitation, and the intended function of the parole system, a non-parole period should have been set. The head sentences themselves were within discretion considering the seriousness, prevalence, and nature of the offences.

Parties
Appellant: Barisa Joseph Rasic; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (severity) From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: non-parole period imposed; otherwise appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed.
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Sentencing, Non Parole Periods, Parole, Severity of Sentence, Cumulative Sentences, Plea of Guilty
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Sentencing Non Parole Periods Parole Severity of Sentence Cumulative Sentences Plea of Guilty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barisa Joseph Rasic

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence (severity) From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence for armed robbery and assault was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellants fear of a drug creditor
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in ordering cumulative sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to fix a non-parole period was an error of principle as the relevant legislation presumes in favour of such a period unless inappropriate. Given the appellant's age, prospects for rehabilitation, and the intended function of the parole system, a non-parole period should have been set. The head sentences themselves were within discretion considering the seriousness, prevalence, and nature of the offences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: non-parole period imposed; otherwise appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed by adding to the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the A.C.T. on 13 July 1983 an order that the appellant serve a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months.
  • Otherwise the appeal be dismissed and the sentences affirmed.