Director of Public Prosecutions v Jovanovic

[2025] VCC 1179

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

CR-24-00629

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JADRANKO JOVANOVIC

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jovanovic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1179

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  Criminal law

Catchwords:  Intentionally cause injury; make threat to kill; reckless conduct endanger life

Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym) [2022] VSCA 263; Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97; Mercer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2015] VSCA 257; Kalala v The Queen [2017] VSCA 223; DPP v Evans [2019] VSCA 239; Dragovic v The King [2024] VSCA 96; Bugmy v The Queen [2012] HCA 37; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

Sentence:Term of imprisonment of 619 days, with a 3-year Community Correction Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr N. Batten	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Andrianakis	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates

HIS HONOUR: 

1Mr Jovanovic, on 31 July 2025 I granted your Application at a Sentence Indication Hearing. I indicated that should you plead guilty to the one charge of intentionally cause injury, one charge of threat to kill and one charge of reckless conduct endangering life, I would impose a sentence combining imprisonment and a Community Correction Order.

2You accepted that sentence indication and you have pleaded guilty to those charges on arraignment today.

3What you did was set out in the Prosecution Opening tendered at the Sentence Indication Hearing and at the Plea. That was that in the early evening of 4 December 2023 the victim came to your home in Norlane. You and she had known each other for about three months as casual friends. She came to pay some money owed. There were complications with all that and she went home later in the afternoon or evening. She did note at the time you were particularly agitated through the time she was with you.

4She returned back in the early hours of 5 December 2023. You were again agitated, making extreme allegations against neighbours. The victim decided to leave and said she wanted to go home. You locked the door. She remained at your house for a time but ultimately went to the bedroom to lie down. She was lying on the bed resting when you jumped on her intentionally and injuring, in particular, her ribs and respiratory function. You then said that you were going to kill her. At the time, you put your hands around her throat and commenced to choke her. She felt as if she was going to die. You then hit her to the face and bit her on the cheek. These last two assaults were charged along with the first act of jumping on her as part of the intentionally causing injury.

5This part of the ordeal, it seems, lasted about 20 minutes. She got up and went to the lounge where you used words so often used by cowardly men who attack women, that is you said, “I feel bad, but it's your fault for everything.” You later again hit her to the face. The victim remained in genuine fear as you were acting in an unstable and unpredictable way.

6Both you and the victim at some point fell asleep. The victim woke first and was able to find her phone and text her son, asking him to call the police. After 15 minutes or so, the police arrived. 

7The victim was taken to the Geelong Hospital where her injuries were assessed as follows: in particular, when she arrived, she had pain in her right chest and difficulty swallowing, her oxygen saturations were low and there was decreased air entry into the right of her chest. On physical findings, she had bruising to her face, particularly around the left eye and both cheeks. There were circular abrasions on her right cheek and left chin that were the bite marks. There was extensive swelling and bruising around the anterior neck, extending on both sides, bespeaking of the choking. She had a mild hoarse voice.

8She underwent CT scans which revealed that she had right-sided pneumothorax, that is a collection of air between the lung and the chest wall, in the form of what may be known as a collapsed lung or a perforated lung, but in any event, there was right lower lobe changes suggestive of a pulmonary contusion, that is lung bruising. There were un-displaced right lateral rib fractures in the fifth, sixth and seventh of her ribs.

9These are serious injuries. In particular, these are described as serious, although you are not charged with serious injury, but they were serious enough for her to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and remain there for three days.  She stayed in hospital until 9 December, leaving at that time before it was medically indicated.

10I have at all the hearings, the Sentence Indication and then in preparation for this Plea, taken into account the victim impact statement. What she wrote expresses the real fear and pain involved in this dreadful offending. She said:

“Just when I think I am over this I realise I am not. I cannot express enough the fear I felt… I knew my ribs were broken because I was in pain. I wasn't aware that my lung was punctured, I just knew something serious was happening and I needed urgent medical attention…When he was strangling me, it was so forceful that it made my bottom dentures fall out...  For someone to say that it was all in my head felt horrible.”

11She said:

“On top of all that, I knew my 22-year-old son who has a mild intellectual disability and ADHD would be stressing out big time. He doesn't like to be left alone for too long.”

12She wrote that:

“Because of his violence my voice has been permanently affected. My voice changes when I get louder, so I am no longer able to sing along with my grandchildren or even laugh or talk with friends.”

13She speaks of being hypervigilant when she is out, worrying about what cars are there and what things are happening around her. She says since the crime she spends more time at home, has had no desire to meet new people.

14She concludes – “Trusting others is a big issue for me now, just to know that someone can shut a door” and conduct themselves in the way that you did.

15You were arrested and the police came and remanded you in custody, where you have remained now 619 days in total.

16You ran a contested committal, refused a sentence indication initially before accepting the second sentence indication that I gave. That latter sentence indication was in the weeks before your trial which was listed to commence in the August sittings.

17As I said in my reasons for giving the sentence indication, the crimes you committed were frightening, you subjected the victim to a chilling and protracted ordeal. Violence by men directed to women is a scourge in our community. It is always serious criminality. Punishment in the form of gaol is to be expected.

18The Court of Appeal in DPP v Reynolds made clear how seriously the courts now see violence by men against women.[1] 

[1]DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym) [2022] VSCA 263 (‘Reynolds’).

19Although you had only known the victim for three months and were just friends, the concepts discussed in Reynolds, in my view, broadly apply, although they there speak specifically of family violence because of the relationship between the offender and the victim in Reynolds.[2]  As I say, it applies to violence by men against women.

[2] Ibid.

20The Court said:

“Regrettably, this is another example of appalling family violence which has come before the courts. Family violence is a blight on our society which this court has been at pains to denounce. It is convenient to re-state what this court has said about family violence and how this informs the sentencing process.

This Court in Pasinis held that the key to protecting victims of family violence:

…lies in deterring violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment so that they are no longer in a position to inflict harm.” [3]

[3] Ibid, [71]-[73], also quoting Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97 at 57.

21The majority judgment in Reynolds went on:

“Soon afterwards, and in a similar vein, this Court said in Mercer (a pseudonym) v The Queen:

This Court has said on a number of occasions that domestic violence will not be tolerated, and that general deterrence is a very important sentencing principle in the sentencing disposition, which must be, and must be seen to be, condemned by the courts. To borrow from what this court has said recently in Filiz v The Queen, offending of this nature is too often perpetrated by men whose response to conflict with a partner is one of violent range.  Such a response is utterly unacceptable.  The court has made clear, and will continue to make plain, that offending of this kind will attract serious consequences

Again, in Kalalav The Queen:

The trial courts of this State are imposing sentences for family violence with increasing frequency. This Court has repeatedly emphasised the need to condemn family violence in line with community expectations. In Filiz v The Queen, the Court acknowledged the ‘shameful truth that family violence is the leading cause of illness, disability and death among Victorian women aged between 15 and 44.'

More recently, in DPP v Evans, this Court stated:

Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread and extremely harmful. It is never justified. Sentences imposed must convey that message strongly.”[4]

[4][4] Reynolds, [74]-[76], also quoting Mercer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2015] VSCA 257, at 54; Kalala v The Queen [2017] VSCA 223, at 59; DPP v Evans [2019] VSCA 239, at [84].

22And in the majority judgment in Reynolds concluded:

“As these authorities make plain, general deterrence, public denunciation, just punishment and community protection must be the prominent sentencing factors when sentencing for family violence.”[5]

[5]Reynolds, [77].

23In more recent months, following Reynolds, the Court of Appeal again reiterated the sentencing principles that I have just articulated. In Dragovic v The King, the Court of Appeal said:

“Those, (mostly) men, who elect to engage in violent activity within the home can expect little sympathy from sentencing courts. As noted by the Court in DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym), the authorities make plain that ‘general deterrence, public denunciation, just punishment and community protection must be prominent sentencing factors when sentencing for family violent offending’.”[6]

[6]Dragovic v The King [2024] VSCA 96, [33].

24The Court went on:

“Never have these observations been more resonant than now. The community is highly distressed at the tragic prevalence of intimate partner violence. The Court joins in that distress. Those inclined to this type of emotional and physical violence must understand that they will be held to account.”[7]

[7] Ibid.

25What was also said in the DPP v Reynolds with specific reference to choking – (of course that was Charge 3 in your case), the choking that you inflicted upon the victim - the Court said:

“Choking another person… is a pernicious and dangerous form of violence.  The risk which such conduct entails cannot be ignored when assessing its gravity…Within the context of domestic or family violence, choking represents a chilling exploitation of physical power and dominance.”[8]

[8]Reynolds, [80].

26Your offending was a serious example of the offences you committed. The need for three days of intensive care in the hospital makes that all clear. As was said in Reynolds, choking, which you did, is a particularly grave crime of endangerment, the fear that is engendered is particularly acute.[9]

[9]Reynolds.

27In addition to my assessment of the gravity of your offending, I also consider your moral culpability to be high. It is not the only time you have committed violent crimes in concerning circumstances. Your first criminal priors for violence are recorded in 2008 when the County Court sentenced you to two years and six months, which, in effect, was then wholly suspended, for the offences of making threats to kill, intentionally and recklessly causing injury.

28Your next violent offending was dealt with in the Magistrates Court by adjourned undertaking of 18 months. Further threats to kill and reckless conduct endangering serious injury were dealt with in the Magistrates Court by way of a Community Correction Order in February 2011. This Correction Order was breached and a three-month suspended sentence imposed in March 2011.

29Another suspended sentence was imposed in 2013 for threat to kill and property damage. Earlier suspended sentences were breached, and you had to serve imprisonment. In 2014, you received a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed for threatening to kill, false imprisonment and reckless conduct endangering serious injury.

30A gap in your offending can be seen for 2014 to 2017. However, in 2017 you received imprisonment and a Community Correction Order for again intentionally cause injury and threat to kill, and many other violent offences. You breached the Community Correction component and received a 60 day sentence in 2019.

31In April of 2019, you were sentenced to three years with a minimum of two years for sexual assault and false imprisonment.

32There were in this offending, and throughout your history, many driving offences as well.

33Your criminal history, especially with respect to threats to kill, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and intentionally and recklessly causing injury, are very concerning. You are a repeat offender.

34Your personal history and upbringing are set out in the psychological report, and the letter from your sister which reveal horrific exposure to violence in the war-torn country where you grew up.

35You are now 42. You were born and raised in Bosnia and, up until the outbreak of war in that country, your childhood was good. At around eight years of age, you witnessed torture and sexual assault of your mother and sister. Your father, who had to fight in the war, was ultimately taken away and imprisoned. You were separated from your family and housed in a United Nations refugee camp for four years before being reunited with your family. You had no information as to their fate throughout this time, as I understand it.

36All of this has left an enduring mark on you psychologically.

37In 1996, you came to Australia with your family as refugees. The effects of trauma on your parents meant that your upbringing thereafter was harsh, involving significant violence.

38Your parents are still alive and support you. You will live with them on your release. Your father has very significant renal illness. Your sister is a particularly important support for you. 

39You have not worked since 2013, surviving on a Disability Support Pension.

40You have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from your experiences of war and then the violence at home once in Australia. In your case, perhaps unlike many that come before this court, there seems little doubt as to this diagnosis and its ongoing impact on you.

41The victim of your offending referred to your disturbed references to your childhood experiences that you were expressing around or during the ordeal that she endured.

42There has been another diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia, but that is less certain. Ms Cidoni, the psychologist who assessed you, thought you had a Borderline Personality Disorder. 

43You have had problems with drugs, and again the victim spoke of methylamphetamine use as being part of the context, in particular a frightening part of the context of this offending.

44In my view, your traumatic experience in your upbringing is relevant to your ongoing difficulties. The relevance of these dreadful experiences is not diminished because you are a recidivist offender. The High Court in Bugmy made this clear.[10]

[10]Bugmy v The Queen [2012] HCA 37.

45Your deeply engrained trauma, in my view, needs consistent treatment, it is not being abated by your time in prison, and it may well be that your trauma is made worse by ongoing imprisonment. Your sister insightfully said how you need treatment in the community.

46It was emphasised by your counsel how you have not had the benefit of supervision on parole, certainly not with the last sentence being the three years with the minimum of two, where you did each day of the three years before release. What you did seek is that, in a relatively short period from the sentence indication, you be released to do a Community Correction Order with rehabilitation programs in place to facilitate your rehabilitation. As I pointed out, the still relatively new regime of Community Correction Orders being combined with long terms of imprisonment establish a parallel monitoring system to that of parole. That system can enhance rehabilitation while still punishing. 

47The Court of Appeal in Boulton emphasised that Community Correction Orders are punishment by reason of the risk of breaching the Order leading to a total re-sentencing, potentially for longer than any period of parole.[11] 

[11]Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

48Thus, in this case, the difference, I thought, between a head sentence and a non-parole period, and gaol combined with a Community Correction Order, was a difference of little practical consequence to the sentencing purposes, including protection of the community. In my view, the community would be comforted if the court strictly supervised your release so as to ensure that you adhere to treatment within a Community Correction Order.

49As I say, these were among more important reasons why I indicated a combined sentence when I did.

50The report that I sought and received from Corrections found that you were suitable. I consider the risk assessment given in the report to be an under-estimate - you are much more a higher risk than medium. All this means is Corrections must be strict in their supervision of you and quick to implement rehabilitation programs and quick to report any breaches.

51I am satisfied that all sentencing purposes, most particularly protection of the community, punishment of you and deterrence to you and to others, can be met by the gaol that you have served of 619 days, or just short of 20 months, together with a long Community Correction Order. 

52My sentence, in my view, properly comprehends the dreadful ordeal and violence of your crimes and the impact on the victim. The sentence also endeavours to break the cycle of violence which has been the pattern for years.  I have factored in your plea of guilty, which is to your benefit, evidence developing of remorse and the plea of guilty is to the benefit of the criminal justice system.

53These crimes, although different and having their serious aspects to them, in my view can be met by an aggregate sentence, thus the aggregate sentence I impose is the sentence of imprisonment of 619 days together with a Community Correction Order of three years. 

54Within that Community Correction Order, you must be under supervision for the whole time. You must do programs that assess and then treat your drug addiction, assess and then treat your mental health difficulties, and also programs that may assist you or may reduce your risk of reoffending.

55I also declare that you have served 619 days on remand. I will ensure this declaration is entered into the records of the court so that the authorities are left in no doubt that you have served each and every day, that is the whole 619 days that I have just imposed.

56I have been advised that there is capacity, generously from your family, to ensure that you are taken from Barwon Prison to where you are to reside with your parents and commence the period of Correction Order today - they will pick you up - so they have told your instructing solicitors.

57So, had you pleaded not guilty to the offending, I would have imposed a sentence of four years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

58It is necessary that I declare that you are a serious offender by reason of your multiple threat to kill offences, thus you are a serious violent offender, and that declaration will be entered into the records of the court.

59Are there any other orders required?

60MR ANDRIANAKIS:  If Your Honour pleases.

61MR BATTEN:  No, Your Honour. 

62HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  I'll just get the Corrections order printed and sorted and I'll read again to you the conditions of that and ask you if you will do that order. We'll take your consent to that orally and will be noted on the particular form. It will just take a moment, just remain where you are. 

63I am going to start it because I fear that Corrections will just cut us off mid-sentence - oh, we have an extension, all right. I am going to still start it in this way, that everyone who is on a Correction Order, and you've been on them before, not very successfully but you have, this one has to be a success. The first thing to understand is that you must not commit an offence for which you could be imprisoned in the next - throughout the whole period of the Corrections order. Now, that is three years, that's longer than any parole period - understand that ‑ ‑ ‑ 

64ACCUSED:  I understand that ‑ ‑ ‑ 

65HIS HONOUR: So if you commit an offence for which you could be punished by imprisonment, that's almost every offence you can think of, and if you do that, well you just come back before me and the sort of sentence I have imposed won't be repeated, it'll be sending you to gaol for a lengthy period, almost inevitably.

66The other conditions that apply to everyone on a Correction Order and apply to you is relating to co-operation. You have to report to the Office of Corrections within two clear working days, so get to it on Monday or Tuesday when they open up, report to them ‑ ‑ ‑

67ACCUSED:  Yes, sir ‑ ‑ ‑ 

68HIS HONOUR:  Where did you say it was - at Reservoir. You want to get down there and report to them, and thereafter you have to keep them informed of things such as any change in your address, any change in a job or if you get a job ‑ ‑ ‑ 

69ACCUSED:  Yes, sir ‑ ‑ ‑ 

70HIS HONOUR: If you want to go interstate, you have to get permission from them, you have to ask them before you go, and you have to obey all lawful directions. 

71And the program conditions that I set out were that you have to be assessed and treated for drug problems, you have to be assessed and treated for mental health problems. Now you must get a mental health plan, and you must get it started quickly. You have to get to a psychologist, hopefully with the specialisation in post-traumatic stress, that will assist you long-term. You need help, you cannot do it on your own. And the other thing is there will be programs you have to do that they will direct you to help you - or reduce your risk of re-offending.  Do you understand all that?

72ACCUSED:  I understand.  I really appreciate everything, and I am sorry also and I hope not to see you in the future ‑ ‑ ‑ 

73HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well it's all got to change. Okay, listen to me:  will you do this order?

74ACCUSED:  I will do this order, Your Honour.

75HIS HONOUR:  All right. 

76ACCUSED:  I really thank you.

77HIS HONOUR:  That's all right. I'm going to sign it, and it will be noted that you gave oral consent to that order. I decided not to do judicial monitoring, I just expect they will tell me if he has failed quickly.

78Is there anything else needed on that Correction Order?

79MR BATTEN:  No.

80MR ANDRIANAKIS:  No, Your Honour. 

81HIS HONOUR:  The orders will be forwarded to the prison authorities as soon as possible so they can make arrangements and do calculations and ensure that he can be released when his family are there. Nothing further - thank you very much.

82ACCUSED:  Thank you, sir, thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑