R v Milos Novakovic - [2019] VSC 556

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0195

Between:

THE QUEEN

-and-

MILOS NOVAKOVIC

Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Novakovic
MEDIUM NETRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 556

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentences for affray and murder (following trial) and aggravated burglary (guilty plea) — Accused (MN) and co-accused (MJ and SJ) involved in affray, with several others (including DD), inside dining room of restaurant — After ejected from dining room, MN, MJ and SJ entered kitchen at rear of restaurant with intent to commit an offence involving assault to a person (DD) therein — Upon entry, DD assaulted by MN and MJ — MN spontaneously picked up knife and stabbed DD to chest, killing him — Affray at lower end of gravity — No or low level injuries — Aggravated burglary unusual — No weapons, not residential — While entry to kitchen intended, fighting spilled in via doorway when MN threw punches at DD — Murder had serious features but also spontaneous, involving intention to cause really serious injury, not to kill — Relevance of parity with sentences on co-accused — On affray, seven months’ imprisonment — On aggravated burglary, 18 months’ imprisonment — On murder, 20 years’ imprisonment — With cumulation, total effective sentence of 20 years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 15 years.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Doyle with Ms J Warren	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Mr Novakovic	Mr C Mandy SC	Marcevski Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

Milos Novakovic, Milan Jovic and his brother Sasa Jovic were each indicted in this Court on charges of affray,[1] aggravated burglary[2] and murder[3] arising out of events that culminated in the stabbing death of Deni Dimovski at Caroline Springs on 9 September 2017.
[1]Contrary to common law (albeit the maximum penalty for the offence is fixed by statute: see s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)).
[2]Contrary to s 77(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3]Contrary to common law (albeit the maximum penalty for the offence is fixed by statute: see s 3 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)).

All three accused were involved in group fighting inside a restaurant in the early hours of the morning. After being ejected and while heading to the carpark to leave, the three entered the rear of the same premises through the kitchen door with assault on their minds. Once inside, Mr Novakovic spontaneously grabbed a knife and stabbed Mr Dimovski twice — once to the chest, which killed him, and once to the arm, which did not contribute to death.

The charge of murder was put against Mr Novakovic as a principal who deliberately stabbed and killed Mr Dimovski with murderous intent. Alternatively, it was alleged that Mr Novakovic was guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

It was alleged…

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 Milos Novakovic

Details

AGLC: R v Milos Novakovic [2019] VSC 556
Case: [2019] VSC 556
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Milos Novakovic, the accused, Milos Novakovic, was involved in a dispute that resulted in the death of a person during an affray at a restaurant. The case was heard in the relevant court where the accused pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary but contested the charges of affray and murder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for each offence and whether the sentences should be cumulative or concurrent. The legal issues at hand included the gravity of the offences, the relevance of the sentences imposed on co-accused, and the consideration of parity in sentencing.

The court considered the nature of the affray, which was of a lower end of gravity due to the lack of serious injuries and the spontaneous nature of the incident. The aggravated burglary was deemed unusual as it involved no weapons and did not occur in a residential setting. The murder charge was serious, although it was spontaneous and involved an intention to cause really serious injury rather than an intention to kill. The court balanced these factors, taking into account the need for deterrence and the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure appropriate parity with the sentences imposed on co-accused.

In determining the sentences, the court imposed seven months’ imprisonment for the affray, 18 months’ for the aggravated burglary, and 20 years’ for the murder. The court decided that the sentences should cumulate, resulting in an effective sentence of 20 years and six months’ imprisonment. The non-parole period was set at 15 years, reflecting the seriousness of the murder and the need for public protection. The court's reasoning emphasised the necessity to consider the totality of the offences and the importance of achieving a just outcome in line with the principles of sentencing.

The final orders of the court were that Milos Novakovic be sentenced to 20 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. This decision was based on the cumulative effect of the sentences for the affray, aggravated burglary, and murder, ensuring that the total punishment reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders