District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Husan Hasanovic [2020] NSWDC 40 Hearing dates: 21 February 2020 Date of orders: 21 February 2020 Decision date: 21 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Tupman DCJ Decision: Non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. Form 1 taken into account.
Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child between 10 and 14 — 2 counts — Guilty pleas in Local Court — 25% discount for early plea — Victim 12 years old — Offender 27 years old — Drunk at time of offence — Offender had lengthy criminal history but no previous sexual offences — Risk of re-offending high but connected to previous alcohol and drug abuse — No drug or alcohol use since arrest. Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 25AA(1)
Crimes Act 1900, s 66C(1)Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Mr Husan HasanovicRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms. J. Turner (ODPP)
Mr. E. James (Offender)
Mr. A. Agar (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/69799
- HER HONOUR: The offender is before the court for sentence on one charge pursuant to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 that on 14 February 2019 at Chester Hill he had sexual intercourse with the victim, whose name is initialised on the charge sheet, who was at the time aged between 10 and 14, namely 12. The maximum penalty for this offence is a term of imprisonment of 16 years with a standard non-parole period of 7 years.
- When sentencing for this matter he asks that I take into account an additional Form 1 offence, also an offence contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900 occurring at the same time. The maximum penalty would have been the same if it were sentenced separately.
- The agreed facts have been signed by the offender and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They are tendered in these proceedings. I accept from those that on 14 February 2019 the victim was a 12 year old girl due to turn 13 in about six weeks. She had spent some time with her boyfriend during that day and he then walked her to Chester Hill station. She was due to meet her mother at Central but got on the wrong train. She got off the train two stops later intending to catch another train to her grandparent’s house. She walked across the platform to do that and saw the offender who was standing nearby smoking a cigarette. She asked him for one, he asked her how old she was and she said she was 16. He rolled her a cigarette and they had a brief conversation during which she told him her name.
- They then both got on the next train, it would appear back to and got off at Chester Hill. He asked if she wanted to come back…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Husan Hasanovic and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Husan Hasanovic, the offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual intercourse with a child between 10 and 14 years old, before the Local Court. The Local Court Judge imposed a non-parole period of two years, but the offender sought a sentence review in the Supreme Court. The offender was 27 years old at the time of the offence, while the victim was 12. The offender was drunk during the offence and had a significant criminal history, although no previous sexual offences. Since his arrest, the offender had abstained from drugs and alcohol.
The offender's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the offender was a suitable candidate for rehabilitation. The offender's lengthy criminal history and high risk of re-offending were primarily attributed to his alcohol and drug abuse. The offender's early guilty plea warranted a 25% discount to the sentence. The offender's age and intoxication at the time of the offence were also considered mitigating factors. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the offences and the offender's risk of re-offending.
The Supreme Court Judge found that the offender's lengthy criminal history and high risk of re-offending were significant factors to consider in sentencing. However, the Judge also noted that the offender's risk of re-offending was closely tied to his previous alcohol and drug abuse, which he had abstained from since his arrest. The Judge considered the offender's early guilty plea and his intoxication at the time of the offence as mitigating factors. The Judge ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was a non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months.
The Supreme Court Judge made an order for the non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. The Judge also took into account the Form 1, which outlined the offender's criminal history and risk of re-offending. The offender was given credit for his early guilty plea and his abstention from drugs and alcohol since his arrest. The offender's sentence was thus reduced from two years to 2 years and 6 months.
The offender's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the offender was a suitable candidate for rehabilitation. The offender's lengthy criminal history and high risk of re-offending were primarily attributed to his alcohol and drug abuse. The offender's early guilty plea warranted a 25% discount to the sentence. The offender's age and intoxication at the time of the offence were also considered mitigating factors. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of the offences and the offender's risk of re-offending.
The Supreme Court Judge found that the offender's lengthy criminal history and high risk of re-offending were significant factors to consider in sentencing. However, the Judge also noted that the offender's risk of re-offending was closely tied to his previous alcohol and drug abuse, which he had abstained from since his arrest. The Judge considered the offender's early guilty plea and his intoxication at the time of the offence as mitigating factors. The Judge ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was a non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months.
The Supreme Court Judge made an order for the non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months, giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. The Judge also took into account the Form 1, which outlined the offender's criminal history and risk of re-offending. The offender was given credit for his early guilty plea and his abstention from drugs and alcohol since his arrest. The offender's sentence was thus reduced from two years to 2 years and 6 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Non-parole period of 18 months with parole thereafter of 12 months giving rise to an overall term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. Form 1 taken into account.
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.