District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Popovic [2025] NSWDC 231 Hearing dates: 8 May 2025 Date of orders: 8 May 2025 Decision date: 08 May 2025 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months
Catchwords: CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm knowing that people were there
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Home of victim — In company — Planned or organised criminal activity
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Joint criminal enterprise — Care not to impose a crushing sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Proportionality
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Mental disorder — Childhood trauma
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2013] NSWCCA 115
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301
Koloamatangi v R; Popovic v R [2020] NSWCCA 52
Popovic v R; Hristovski v R; Bubanja v R; Koloamatangi v R [2016] NSWCCA 202
Category: Sentence Parties: Zlatan Popovic (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D Smith (for the offender)
Toomey Defence Lawyers (for the offender)
J Loosley for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s): 2023/461144
JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised
Introduction
-
This morning Zlatan Popovic adhered to a guilty plea entered in the Local Court to committing the offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, being assault occasioning actual bodily harm knowing that people were there. That offence charged pursuant to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. There is a standard non-parole period of 5 years. Popovic also accepts his guilt and asks that when I sentence him for that offence, I take into account an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm: Crimes Act, s 59(1). I will do so.
-
It is sad that much of Popovic’s history and personal circumstances can be gleaned from the criminal reports. He has spent significant periods of his life in custody. He has a criminal record for many matters, including acts of violence. His life was blighted by the suicide of his partner while he was in custody.
-
In February 1999 he discharged a shotgun in Keira Street and shot and killed another man. Other people in the vicinity were wounded. After two trials…
Continue reading R v Popovic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Popovic [2025] NSWDC 231
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 231
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing these issues, the court considered the aggravating factors such as the planning and organisation of the criminal activity, the fact that the crime was committed in the victim’s home, and the assault on the victim. The court also acknowledged the mitigating factors, including the respondent's plea of guilty, his drug addiction, mental disorder, and history of childhood trauma. The court balanced these considerations against the need for deterrence and proportionality, ultimately determining that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.
The court held that while the mitigating factors presented did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence, they were sufficiently compelling to ensure that the sentence was not excessively harsh. The court also noted that the sentence needed to reflect the moral culpability and objective seriousness of the crime, while taking into account the respondent's personal circumstances. The sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period, was deemed to appropriately balance these considerations.
The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the original sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 3 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.