Court of Appeal (Qld)|1996-10-03|Before: Mackenzie J, Moynihan J, Cullinane J

The applicant Valeria Buciuman was involved in all 12 offences. Alexandru Buciuman was involved in 11 and the applicant Ioan Dobrovolski was involved in eight. Obviously Valeria Buciuman was responsible for the supply of 61.6 grams worth $48,750, Alexandru Buciuman was responsible for 54.14 grams and $43,750 and Mr Dobrovolski for 44.363 grams and $36,500.

The individual supplies were dealt with as separate counts. Mrs Buciuman was also charged with possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of the offences, but that has not featured in the submissions today.

For the trafficking each was sentenced to 13 years with a recommendation that they be considered for parole after four and a half years. On the other charges they were sentenced to four years imprisonment. Counsel for the Buciumans had submitted that 12 to 14 years was appropriate, with a recommendation to reflect cooperation by a plea of guilty.

It was accepted that they were at the middle man level and not low level dealers. Mrs Buciuman had no previous and Mr Buciuman had no relevant previous. It was alleged by the Buciumans that Mr Dobrovolski knew the supplier but they did not. Mr Dobrovolski's counsel accepted that that was so except for the first occasion. It was also accepted that he was not a low level dealer. Counsel for Mr Dobrovolski had submitted that a 12 year sentence would be the appropriate head sentence. The information was that none of the applicants were users and therefore there was a commercial motive without the circumstance of funding an addiction to drugs. It seems that there may have been a habit of gambling that was being funded, at least to some extent, by the moneys received.

In my opinion the learned trial Judge was justified in not differentiating between the prisoners when sentencing and Mr Dobrovolski did not today suggest that there was any basis for differentiating. There was a slightly lesser quantity in his case, but that was counterbalanced, in my view, by what appears to be a closer relationship with the supplier.

Notwithstanding the range suggested by counsel at the hearing, Mrs Richards today submitted that 10 years with a recommendation after three years was appropriate. We were referred particularly to the cases of Scaunasu and Tran as possible bench marks. Having considered those cases and the others to which reference was made in the outlines, it is my view that the present case fits comfortably within the pattern of cases, and for that reason I am not persuaded that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. In each case the application should be refused.

MOYNIHAN J: The order will be as Justice Mackenzie has proposed. Do you understand the outcome, Mr Dobrovolski?

R v Buciuman, Buciuman & Dobrovolski [1996] QCA 387 (3 October 1996)

R v Buciuman, Buciuman & Dobrovolski [1996] QCA 387

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

R v Buciuman, Buciuman & Dobrovolski [1996] QCA 387 (3 October 1996)