Jovan Nenadov SAVIC v REGINA [2008] NSWCCA 312

Jovan Nenadov SAVIC v REGINA [2008] NSWCCA 312

The appeal against conviction failed because the evidence of the earlier September 2002 offence and guilty plea was relevant to motive and relationship and was not misused as tendency evidence; no error was shown in refusing a view or limiting cross-examination; no incompetence or denial of procedural fairness was established; and the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's close visual and voice identification evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal failed because the offences were serious and violent, the sentences reflected their objective seriousness, there was no excessive accumulation, and no sentencing error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['wounding With Intent to Murder' 'wounding With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'visual Identification' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'credit Evidence' 'counsel Incompetence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'sentence Excessiveness']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['wounding With Intent to Murder' 'wounding With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'visual Identification' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'credit Evidence' 'counsel Incompetence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'sentence Excessiveness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that the appellant had pleaded guilty to an earlier offence against the complainant was inadmissible or unfairly prejudicial.' "Whether trial counsel's failure to object to that evidence and advice to proceed by judge alone displayed flagrant incompetence." 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing or not acceding to a view of the scene.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in disallowing cross-examination of the complainant about prior inconsistent evidence and credit.' 'Whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory or resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were excessive or failed to account for the co-operative manner in which the trial was conducted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the evidence of the earlier September 2002 offence and guilty plea was relevant to motive and relationship and was not misused as tendency evidence; no error was shown in refusing a view or limiting cross-examination; no incompetence or denial of procedural fairness was established; and the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's close visual and voice identification evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal failed because the offences were serious and violent, the sentences reflected their objective seriousness, there was no excessive accumulation, and no sentencing error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']