R v Iloski - [2023] NSWDC 596

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Iloski [2023] NSWDC 596
Hearing dates: 3 November 2023
Decision date: 16 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
Special circumstances found – 1st time in custody, considering his age, the need for a longer period on supervised parole to assist the offender to reintegrate into the community.
Indicative sentences
COUNT 1 - 004 - 18 months
COUNT 2 - 005 – 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months
COUNT 3 - 006 - 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months
COUNT 4 - 007 - 3 years & 6 months, with NPP of 2 years & 3 months
COUNT 5 - 008 - 7 years
COUNT 6 - 009 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months
COUNT 7 - 010 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months
COUNT 8 – 011 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months
COUNT 9 – 003 – 3 years with NPP of 2 years
Aggregate sentence
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years, comprising a NPP of 7 years and 2 months to commence on 30 August 2023 and expiring on 29 October 2030, and a balance of term of 3 years and 10 months to expire on 29 August 2034.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL – sentence after trial – 9 counts of indecent & sexual assault between 2003 & 2009 on 3 “particularly vulnerable” victims all under the age of 16– offender in his 40s - ongoing & deliberate conduct – offender took advantage of his close friendship with children’s mother to gain access & trust – significance of age gap - degree of exploitation – seriousness of offences –impact of offending – subjective matters – indicative and aggregate sentences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999

Cases Cited:
Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176
Muldrockv The Queen [2011] HCA 39
PC v R [2022] NSWCCA 107

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Iloski, Dragan
Representation: Counsel:
Crown: Mr N Marney ODPP
Defence: Mr G Hoare
Solicitors:
Crown: Ms E Galea ODPP
Defence: Mr B Ford Douglass & Ford Criminal Law

File Number(s): 2022/0069189
Publication restriction: NPO in respect of the names of the complainants or anything that might tend to identify them.

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Dragan Iloski appears for sentence in respect of nine offences of which he was convicted by a jury, the trial having commenced on 21 August 2023 and concluding with a conviction in relation to each of the counts on the indictment on 30 August 2023. The offender has been in custody since that date; although arrested on 10 March 2022, he was not in custody until the conclusion of the trial.
Of the nine counts on the indictment the first eight counts related to DL and the final Count 9 related to her older sister KL. They were the two middle children of…

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 Iloski

Details

AGLC: R v Iloski [2023] NSWDC 596
Case: [2023] NSWDC 596
Decision Date: 16 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Iloski, was convicted on nine counts of indecent and sexual assault against three particularly vulnerable victims under the age of 16. The offences occurred between 2003 and 2009, and the offender, who was in his 40s, took advantage of his close friendship with the children's mother to gain access and trust. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a state in Australia. The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the severity of the crimes, the exploitation of the victims' vulnerability, and the subjective factors involved in determining the non-parole period.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence, including the ongoing and deliberate nature of the offending, the age gap between the offender and the victims, the degree of exploitation, and the impact of the offences on the victims. The court also examined the need for a longer period on supervised parole to assist the offender in reintegrating into the community, given that this was the offender's first time in custody and his age. After considering the indicative and aggregate sentences for each count, the court concluded that an aggregate sentence of 11 years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months.

In summary, the court found the defendant guilty on all nine counts of indecent and sexual assault and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 11 years, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 2 months. The court took into account the severity of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for a longer period on supervised parole to assist the offender in reintegrating into the community. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of the various factors involved in determining an appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

Special circumstances found – 1st time in custody, considering his age, the need for a longer period on supervised parole to assist the offender to reintegrate into the community.

Indicative sentences

COUNT 1 - 004 - 18 months

COUNT 2 - 005 – 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months

COUNT 3 - 006 - 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months

COUNT 4 - 007 - 3 years & 6 months, with NPP of 2 years & 3 months

COUNT 5 - 008 - 7 years

COUNT 6 - 009 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months

COUNT 7 - 010 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months

COUNT 8 – 011 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months

COUNT 9 – 003 – 3 years with NPP of 2 years

Aggregate sentence

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years, comprising a NPP of 7 years and 2 months to commence on 30 August 2023 and expiring on 29 October 2030, and a balance of term of 3 years and 10 months to expire on 29 August 2034.

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 Iloski [2023] NSWDC 596
Hearing dates:	3 November 2023
Decision date:	16 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. Special circumstances found – 1st time in custody, considering his age, the need for a longer period on supervised parole to assist the offender to reintegrate into the community. Indicative sentences COUNT 1 - 004 - 18 months COUNT 2 - 005 – 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months COUNT 3 - 006 - 2 years with NPP of 1 year & 3 months COUNT 4 - 007 - 3 years & 6 months, with NPP of 2 years & 3 months COUNT 5 - 008 - 7 years COUNT 6 - 009 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months COUNT 7 - 010 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months COUNT 8 – 011 - 4 years with NPP of 2 years & 8 months COUNT 9 – 003 – 3 years with NPP of 2 years Aggregate sentence Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years, comprising a NPP of 7 years and 2 months to commence on 30 August 2023 and expiring on 29 October 2030, and a balance of term of 3 years and 10 months to expire on 29 August 2034.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentence after trial – 9 counts of indecent & sexual assault between 2003 & 2009 on 3 “particularly vulnerable” victims all under the age of 16– offender in his 40s - ongoing & deliberate conduct – offender took advantage of his close friendship with children’s mother to gain access & trust – significance of age gap - degree of exploitation – seriousness of offences –impact of offending – subjective matters – indicative and aggregate sentences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999
Cases Cited:	Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 Muldrockv The Queen [2011] HCA 39 PC v R [2022] NSWCCA 107
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Iloski, Dragan
Representation:	Counsel: Crown: Mr N Marney ODPP Defence: Mr G Hoare Solicitors: Crown: Ms E Galea ODPP Defence: Mr B Ford Douglass & Ford Criminal Law
File Number(s):	2022/0069189
Publication restriction:	NPO in respect of the names of the complainants or anything that might tend to identify them.