SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Antonovic |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 77 |
Hearing Date: | 24 March 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 8 April 2016 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [32]-[38] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property offences – burglary – theft – significant criminal history – mental health issues – history of polysubstance abuse – disadvantaged childhood – need for personal deterrence – prior non compliance with community based orders – poor prospects of rehabilitation – terms of imprisonment imposed. |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Zdravko Antonovic (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 156A of 2014; SCC 156C of 2014; SCC 165 of 2014 |
BURNS J:
Zdravko Antonovic, you appear before me today to be sentenced with respect to two offences of burglary and two associated offences of theft which occurred on 28 January 2014. The first offence of burglary occurred at the “Mint@Forrest Café” and the offence of theft relates to the theft of the property inside those premises. The second offence of burglary occurred at “Architectural Reflections” in Wollongong Street, Fyshwick and the offence of theft relates to theft of the property from those premises. You also appear before me for sentence with respect to another offence of burglary, which occurred on 2 February 2014 at residential premises in Forrest.
The offences
With respect to the offences of 28 January 2014, at about 1.30 am on that day you attended the Minter Ellison Building at 25 National Circuit, Forrest in the Australian Capital Territory where you forced entry into the “Mint@Forrest Café” by pulling open the rear double glass doors on the ground floor. Whilst inside the premises you stole cash in the amount of $2,250.
Later that same morning you attended at premises in Wollongong Street in Fyshwick where you forced entry into the business premises of “Architectural Reflections” by breaking a front window. Whilst inside the premises you stole a number of items before departing.
You were linked to the burglary at the “Mint@Forrest Café” by DNA evidence which was found at the scene. You were also linked to burglary at “Architectural Reflections” by DNA evidence which was located at the scene.
With respect to the burglary on 2 February 2014 at the premises in Forrest, those premises were a ground floor two bedroom apartment with a courtyard surrounded by a low perimeter wall. The courtyard faces onto Fitzroy Street and can be accessed by a gate. From inside the courtyard access into the unit can be gained through glass doors. At approximately 3.40 pm on 2 February 2014 one of the occupants left the unit. Before leaving she ensured that the unit was securely locked. At about 4.30 pm that day you drove a green Mercedes sedan along…
Continue reading R v Antonovic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Antonovic [2016] ACTSC 77
- Case
- [2016] ACTSC 77
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the respondent's personal circumstances. The legal issues included the relevance of Antonovic's criminal history and mental health conditions in determining the appropriate sentence, the importance of personal deterrence given the respondent's past non-compliance with community-based orders, and the prospects for rehabilitation in light of Antonovic's disadvantaged background and substance abuse issues.
The court held that Antonovic's significant criminal history and history of non-compliance with community-based orders warranted a sentence that would effectively deter future offending. The court also considered the need for personal deterrence due to Antonovic's poor prospects of rehabilitation. Despite the respondent's disadvantaged background and mental health issues, the court found that these factors did not entirely mitigate the seriousness of the offences. The court ultimately imposed a term of imprisonment, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the respondent's personal circumstances. The specific terms of the imprisonment were detailed in the court's judgment, ranging from [32] to [38].
Orders
Orders of the court
See [32]-[38]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.