R v Subasic (No 5) - [2025] ACTSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Subasic (No 5)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 35
Hearing Date:	13 February 2025
Decision Date:	13 February 2025
Before:	Christensen AJ
Decision:	See [25]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –treatment order cancelled – resentenced – breach of suspended sentence good behaviour order – not engaging with supervision – further offending – committal of breach to Supreme Court prior to finalisation of Magistrates Court sentence – suspended sentence imposed – parole with rehabilitation program recommendation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) pt 6.5, ss 107, 110 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 324 Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT) s 289 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) s 18
Cases Cited:	DPP v XK (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 215 Robertson v DPP [2024] ACTCA 26 R v Subasic [2022] ACTSC 380 R v Subasic (No 3) (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge AJ, 4 September 2023) R v Subasic (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 89
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Jeremy Subasic ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel C Daly ( DPP) S Brown ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 261, 262 of 2020 SCC 186, 193, 195, 196, 299, 300 of 2021

CHRISTENSEN AJ:

Introduction

1․Jeremy Subasic comes before the Court having breached a good behaviour order attached to a suspended sentence. He has breached the order by way of disengagement with supervision, and with further offending. Mr Subasic admits the breach and concedes that in the circumstances imposition is the only appropriate course available to the Court. The primary issue for consideration is at what point Mr Subasic becomes eligible for parole.

Background

2․The suspended sentence the subject of this proceeding was imposed on 4 April 2024: R v Subasic (No 4) [2024] ACTSC 89 (R v Subasic (No 4)). Mr Subasic was sentenced following a resentence on 4 September 2023 that occurred after cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): R v Subasic (No 3) (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge AJ, 4 September 2023) (R v Subasic (No 3)). That unpublished decision is incorporated as a schedule to these reasons.
3․The treatment order was imposed on 2 March 2022, Mr Subasic having been sentenced for offences involving drug offending, driving offending, and dishonesty offences. Those offences were committed between September 2019 and July 2021 and involved an “unrestrained bout of criminality”: R v Subasic [2022] ACTSC 380 at [1]. A total sentence of 3 years and 11 months imprisonment was imposed. Thirteen of the offences in that sentencing exercise were the subject of the treatment order that followed, and that was subsequently cancelled.
4․The resentence on 4 September 2023 (R v Subasic (No 3)) that followed the treatment…

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 Subasic (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Subasic (No 5) [2025] ACTSC 35
Case: [2025] ACTSC 35
Decision Date: 13 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Subasic, the defendant was before the Supreme Court of Victoria on an appeal against sentence. The dispute centred on the defendant's sentencing, specifically concerning a suspended sentence and the subsequent breach of a good behaviour order. The defendant had previously been sentenced in the Magistrates' Court to a suspended sentence, which was subject to a treatment order. This order was subsequently cancelled, leading to the defendant's re-sentencing.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the defendant's breach of the suspended sentence, arising from non-compliance with supervision, warranted a specific form of sentencing. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of further offending by the defendant on the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court was also required to deliberate on the procedural matter of committing the breach to the Supreme Court prior to the finalisation of the Magistrates' Court sentence.

The court concluded that the breach of the suspended sentence, coupled with the defendant's failure to engage with supervision and additional offending, justified a sentence that included a period of parole with a recommendation for a rehabilitation program. The court found that the defendant's conduct demonstrated a need for structured intervention to address the underlying issues contributing to the offending behaviour. Therefore, the sentence was adjusted to reflect these considerations, with the previous treatment order being replaced by a more appropriate rehabilitation program. The court emphasised the importance of a structured approach to address the defendant's ongoing issues and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The orders made by the court included the cancellation of the previous treatment order and the imposition of a new sentence, which involved a period of parole with a recommendation for participation in a rehabilitation program. The court also acknowledged the procedural irregularity of committing the breach to the Supreme Court before the finalisation of the Magistrates' Court sentence but determined that the substantive issues warranted the resentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [25]

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.