R v Ilic - [2019] NSWDC 885

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ilic [2019] NSWDC 885
Hearing dates: 6 December 2019
Decision date: 06 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler DC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Non parole period of 1 year 6 months.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – Armed robbery.
SENTENCE – Relevant factors on sentence - impact of armed robbery offences - vulnerable victim - desperate crime by desperate offender - accumulation – totality - background leading to early uptake of drugs - Henry guideline considered - early guilty plea - remorse – retribution - victim vindication - rehabilitation to the community - special circumstances.
Cases Cited: Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Sentence
Parties: Daniel Ilic (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms T Lasschuit (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00150831

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

I have just dismissed Daniel Ilic’s appeal against a sentence imposed by the Goulburn Local Court and confirmed the orders of the magistrate: see separate judgement. The dismissal of the appeal does not mean it must be put aside. The appeal proceedings are relevant to these sentence proceedings. They help inform a finding I have to make as to the appropriate date for commencing the present sentence, and how that sentence is structured. I have also had regard to - and admitted into these proceedings - the Sentence Assessment Report, which was before the Local Court: exhibit B.
The information from the Local Court appeal file, and that Sentence Assessment Report, confirms that, at the time of the commission of this offence, Ilic and his partner were itinerant. They were drug users. They were not in control of their lives, and they certainly were unable to properly care for their child. They were committing offences against the community. They were no longer part of the community. The offence for sentence today reflects a pattern of desperation, because the offence, from one perspective, was a desperate offence.
The inevitability of Ilic being caught by either the application of DNA technology or CCTV did not prevent this crime. The application of the principle of general deterrence, one of the matters that have to be taken into account with any sentencing exercise, did not prevent this crime. The wise words of the Chief Justice of New South Wales in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, and my sentencing remarks in other robbery sentences, which are widely reported in the local media, did not prevent this crime. It should be notorious that anyone who attempts to rob a vulnerable service provider, such as the victim of this offence, will inevitably go to gaol, and go to gaol for a long time.
That does not mean that courts should refrain from punishing offenders; to the contrary. Crimes of armed robbery, wherever they occur but…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ilic

Details

AGLC: R v Ilic [2019] NSWDC 885
Case: [2019] NSWDC 885
Decision Date: 06 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ilic involved the defendant, Ilic, who was convicted of armed robbery. The case was heard in a higher court where the sentencing of the defendant was the primary focus. The legal issues that the court had to determine were centered on the appropriate sentence for Ilic, considering various factors that could influence the severity and nature of his punishment.

The court was required to assess the impact of Ilic’s crime, particularly the vulnerability of the victim, and the desperation that may have driven Ilic to commit the crime. Additionally, the court considered the accumulation and totality of Ilic’s criminal history, including his early uptake of drugs and the circumstances that led to his criminal career. The court also reviewed the Henry guideline, which is used to determine the appropriate sentence for serious offences, and took into account Ilic’s early guilty plea and his expressions of remorse. The principles of retribution, victim vindication, and the potential for rehabilitation were also deliberated.

In determining the sentence, the court weighed the aggravating factors of the crime against the mitigating factors such as Ilic's early guilty plea and remorse. After careful consideration, the court sentenced Ilic to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The decision aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for Ilic’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Non parole period of 1 year 6 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ilic [2019] NSWDC 885
Hearing dates:	6 December 2019
Decision date:	06 December 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler DC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Non parole period of 1 year 6 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Armed robbery. SENTENCE – Relevant factors on sentence - impact of armed robbery offences - vulnerable victim - desperate crime by desperate offender - accumulation – totality - background leading to early uptake of drugs - Henry guideline considered - early guilty plea - remorse – retribution - victim vindication - rehabilitation to the community - special circumstances.
Cases Cited:	Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Daniel Ilic (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms T Lasschuit (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00150831