R v Stojanovski

[2025] NSWSC 149

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Stojanovski [2025] NSWSC 149

Hearing dates:

21, 25 and 28 February 2025

Date of orders:

05 March 2025

Decision date:

05 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Lonergan J

Decision:

Bail granted

Catchwords:

BAIL – property offences – racist hate crime – role of s 21A(h) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 2013 (NSW)

[REDACTED]

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Thomas Stojanovski (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
P.D. Lange (Applicant)

Solicitors:
OneGroup Legal Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00008883

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. This applicant for bail, Thomas Stojanoviski, is 20 years old and has been charged with multiple offences that arise from his alleged conduct late on the night of 20 November 2024 and into the morning of 21 November 2024. The offending has achieved some notoriety because it involved the spray-painting of racist slogans across cars and properties in an eastern suburb of Sydney and using petrol to set fire to a vehicle in that location.

2. Mr Stojanovski, it is alleged, drove to Woollahra with another man. They stopped at a service station, the other man purchasing two five litre jerry cans, filling those cans with fuel, and purchasing a lighter and box of tissues. The other man searched on his phone “Jewish Hospital Bondi”, “Wolper Jewish Hospital”, “Wellington Street Woollahra” and “Tara Street Woollahra”. The men arrived at Tara Street at about 11:32pm and between that time and 12:30am sprayed slogans on ten different vehicles parked in the location with the words: “Fuck Israel” and “PKK coming” or a combination of those slogans. It is alleged they also entered private property and wrote similar slogans on four separate properties.

3. CCTV footage has been obtained by police investigators which, it is submitted, shows the two men working together to carry out these tasks, with one spraying the paint and the other shining a torch (or phone torch) and keeping lookout.

4. At about 12:30pm it is alleged the two men poured accelerant over a vehicle and set it alight, destroying that vehicle and damaging another vehicle nearby.

5. It is alleged that the vehicle the men arrived in was left at the location. It was later forensically examined, and fingerprints matching Mr Stojanovski were located on the internal and external surfaces of that vehicle. The mobile phone service owned by Mr Stojanovski was connected to cell towers in the Woollahra area during the time these offences were committed. The pair were allegedly seen on CCTV to leave the location in an Uber at about 12:34am.

6. Mr Stojanovski was arrested at his home on 28 November 2024. His co-accused had been arrested at Sydney airport at 3:50am on 25 November 2024, attempting to board an international flight.

7. Mr Stojanovski was charged with 14 counts of destroy or damage property, three counts of enter building or land with intent to commit an indicatable offence, two counts of destroy property in company using fire, one count of behave in an offensive manner in public near a school, and face blackened or disguised with intent to commit an indictable offence.

8. Mr Stojanovski has made no admissions to the offences. In the written submissions provided to the Court his legal representative has asserted that the Crown case is weak because the CCTV footage does not clearly depict a person with a cast on the left wrist, as Mr Stojanovski had at the time, and the other evidence connecting him with the crimes is weak and circumstantial. I will return to the question of strength of the Crown case as this is a mandatory matter for me to consider in determining this application for bail, but on the CCTV footage and photographs tendered on the prosecution case, that material identifies him as the person who drove the car and held a torch while the offensive slogans were painted, and that material that I have seen appears to me to found a strong Crown case identifying Mr Stojanovski.

9. The charges are to be dealt with in the District Court. In that venue the destroy or damage property charges can attract a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, the enter with intent, a maximum of 7 years imprisonment, and the disguise face, 7 years, the other two charges attracting lesser potential penalties.

10. While of course the question of guilt or otherwise is a matter for a jury, and the sentence, if he is convicted of any or all of the offences, is a matter for the sentencing judge, it is relevant to mention that s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) sets out a number of matters of aggravation (and, potentially, mitigation) that would have to be considered by the sentencing court. One that has particular relevance here is subs (h):

“the offence was motivated by hatred for or prejudice against a group of people to which the offender believed the victim belonged (such as people of a particular religion, racial or ethnic origin, language, sexual orientation or age or having a particular disability).”

11. Counsel for Mr Stojanovski submitted that because Mr Stojanovski did not have tattooed on his person evidence of any particular views, as his co-accused does, the Crown will have difficulty proving beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Stojanovski’s involvement, if there was any, was motivated by relevant racist views.

12. I accept that this is an aggravating factor that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that a tattoo on a person’s body may make that task easier, but racism is a base ugliness that can be found lurking in the shadows until opportunity is taken for it to be made manifest.

13. Other aggravating factors under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act may also be found to be relevant by the sentencing court, should it get to that. It would not be, as submitted initially by counsel for Mr Stojanovski, a simple matter of degree of seriousness of the offending being gauged only by the value of the property lost and the cost of fixing the damage. It is a far more sinister and offensive crime than that.

14. I have been informed by the Crown that the charges will proceed on indictment and the trial will proceed with the co-accused which is likely to cause some delay. A charge certificate will be filed on 22 April 2025, seven to eight weeks from now, and following the usual required procedures, it will be mid-June to July before the completion of those processes will divert the matter down the path of a plea or trial. It is likely even if pleas are entered and the matter is committed for sentence, which will not occur until September 2025 or later, and a trial would be later than that, probably not until early 2026.

15. This means that if I refuse bail today, Mr Stojanovski, who is entitled to the presumption of innocence, will be in custody bail refused for a period of between 9 and (I estimate up to) 18 months waiting for sentence to be passed or trial.

16. His application for release must be determined under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The purpose of that act is to provide a legislative framework for a decision as to whether a person who is accused of an offence should be detained or released, with or without conditions.

17. Certain offences are the subject of a requirement that cause must be shown by the applicant as to why that person’s ongoing detention is not justified. None of the offences with which the applicant has been charged have that requirement and so I must determine the application based on an assessment of the bail concerns in s 17(2) of the Bail Act and consideration of the matters listed for mandatory consideration in s 18(1) of that act.

18. The relevant bail concerns here are whether Mr Stojanovski will fail to appear, commit a serious offence, or endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community.

19. Lest there be any doubt, the offences with which Mr Stojanovski has been charged are serious offences. What occurred on that night were planned and focussed hate crimes. Racially-motivated attacks on property make the community unsafe. Hate slogans directed to a group of people dehumanises that target group and labels them worthy of hate. Targeted attacks of this kind against any person or group of people promotes fear and loathing, states of mind that destabilise, damage and render unsafe our community as a whole.

20. If I was of the opinion that there was an unacceptable risk that could not be managed by bail conditions that Mr Stojanovski would go out and do this again, either alone or with others, I would have no hesitation in refusing bail.

21. The Crown has argued that I should hold such concerns, arguing that there is a strong Crown case he was involved, the offending is serious, and if convicted he is likely to receive a custodial penalty, and so a risk that he will fail to appear. [REDACTED].

22. [REDACTED].

23. [REDACTED].

24. [REDACTED].

25. [REDACTED].

26. Returning to s 18(1) Bail Act matters, he has strong community ties in the form of his mother and father who have provided affidavits of support and attended Court on each day of the hearing, including today. In their affidavits they have expressed their shock at the offences with which their son has been charged. His father undertakes to supervise him and provide employment which he will personally direct and supervise.

27. The applicant is relatively young, and this is his first time in custody. The offences are serious, and the Crown case is in my view strong, based on the limited material that I have seen. I stress that this is nothing more than a preliminary assessment that I am required to carry out based on what has been provided to the Court on this application. I consider it likely he will have a custodial sentence imposed if convicted, but the length of that sentence and the non-parole aspect of that is very much dependent on a number of wide-ranging factors, all matters for the sentencing judge. There is a risk that if I refuse bail today, the period of time spent in custody on remand might exceed the non-parole aspect of any sentence imposed. He has some vulnerabilities as a young, and to my assessment, immature man in custody for the first time. He also has some orthopaedic problems including a wrist fracture that, according to material provided, needs surgical attention.

28. Most importantly, I am satisfied that the conditions of bail that I will impose can address the risks presented by the applicant to below a level that is unacceptable. The months in custody in an adult facility have no doubt been salutary. He would know that he will be observed and that any breach of bail will return him to that place. The bail proposal involves, in effect, house arrest and daily reporting to police, enforcement conditions where his compliance can be checked, and a very curtailed existence between now and his trial.

29. I am aware of the level of community shock and outrage arising from these crimes in November 2024. However, the task imposed on me by the Bail Act is to address the risk from the release, going forward. The outcome of that assessment requires the applicant’s release on bail.

30. Accordingly, there will be a grant of bail on conditions:

1. The applicant is to be of good behaviour.

2. The applicant is to appear at the Local Court at Downing Centre on 22 April 2025, and thereafter as directed.  

3. The applicant is to live at [REDACTED] and nowhere else.     

4. The applicant is to report to the Officer in Charge at [REDACTED] Police Station daily between the hours of 5:00am and 9:00pm.

5.  The applicant is not to leave the premises at which the applicant is required to live except in the following circumstances:              

1. when in the company of his father, [REDACTED] or his mother, [REDACTED]; or

2. for the purposes of reporting to the police; or

3. to obtain emergency medical treatment.

6. The applicant may only travel away from the Correctional Centre where he is currently housed from which the applicant is to be released on bail when in the company of his father, [REDACTED] or mother, [REDACTED]. This is a pre-release condition and must be complied with before the applicant is released on bail.

7. The applicant is not to drink alcohol or enter any premises in which alcohol is sold, other than a licensed restaurant.       

8.  The applicant is not to take any illegal or prescription drugs other than a drug prescribed for the applicant by a medical practitioner.         

9. The applicant is not to approach or communicate with the co-accused Mohammed Farhat or Adam Hawi, or attempt to make contact with either of those persons by any means, including telephone and internet social media platforms, or through another person, other than a legal representative.

10. The applicant is not to approach or communicate with, or attempt to make contact with, any person who the applicant has been notified as a prosecution witness other than a serving police officer, by any means, including telephone and internet social media platforms, or through a third party, other than a legal representative.

11. The applicant is not to enter the suburb of Woollahra. 

12. The applicant is not to go within 500 metres of any point of international departure from the Commonwealth of Australia.  

13. The applicant is to cause his passport to be surrendered to the Officer in Charge at [REDACTED] Police Station prior to being released to bail, and is not to apply for a new passport or other travel document. This is a pre-release condition. 

14. The applicant is to not to use or be in possession of more than one mobile telephone service and SIM card, and is to provide the password or PIN code, service and IMEI numbers of that telephone to the Officer in Charge within 24 hours of taking or resuming possession of any such service.              

15. The applicant is to present himself at the front door of the address where the applicant will reside at the direction of any police officer who believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to confirm compliance with the:

1. curfew condition

2. drug abstention condition

3. alcohol abstention condition.

16.  The applicant is to undertake any non-invasive testing required of the applicant at the direction of any police officer who believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to confirm compliance with the:

1. drug abstention condition

2. alcohol abstention condition. 

**********

Amendments

20 May 2025 - Par 8, last sentence: replaced the word "find" with "found".

Decision last updated: 20 May 2025