R v Antonovic

Case [2016] ACTSC 77


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:

Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49

Tate v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 50

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:

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Antonovic [2016] ACTSC 77
Case
[2016] ACTSC 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Antonovic, was charged with multiple property offences, including burglary and theft. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary concern was the appropriate sentencing for these offences, taking into account Antonovic's significant criminal history, mental health issues, history of polysubstance abuse, disadvantaged childhood, and poor prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered Antonovic's prior non-compliance with community-based orders, which necessitated personal deterrence.

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.