R v Trajkovski - [2025] NSWDC 456

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Trajkovski
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 456
Hearing Date(s):	10 October 2025
Date of Orders:	10 October 2025
Decision Date:	10 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 5 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Property offences — Larceny CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — In company SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Victim of a serious crime
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Green v R [2022] NSWCCA 230 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Nikola Trajkovski (the offender) Director Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: B Hart (for the accused) Solicitors: Russoniello Lawyers (for the accused) N Verghese for the Director Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/221994

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE REVISED

On the evening of 20 May 2023, a very serious home invasion occurred at a home in Southern Wollongong. The offender Nikola Trajkovski, Zlatan Popovic, and another man (who has not been identified) turned up at the home in a four-wheel drive vehicle just as three other men, including the principal occupant, were walking out the front. The three men discerned, quickly and correctly, that those in the four-wheel drive had hostile intent and rushed inside.
The new arrivals left the four-wheel drive and walked down the driveway. Popovic kicked in the home’s door. The three then entered. The unidentified man forced one of the occupants to lie face down. Popovic asked him, "Do you know who I am?" The man said no. Popovic then pointed to Trajkovski and asked, “you know who this is?" He immediately recognised Trajkovski. Someone said, "Give us all the stuff." The man got up off the ground and grabbed a small resealable bag which contained approximately 7 grams of methylamphetamine which he handed to the man with the axe.
The unidentified man said, "Is that it?" Their victim started looking to find something else. As he did so he was struck to the back of the head by the axe. He fell to the ground and was told not to move. He then got up and left the premises and hid. He had a lump on his head but was not bleeding. That offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm charged…

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 Trajkovski

Details

AGLC: R v Trajkovski [2025] NSWDC 456
Case: [2025] NSWDC 456
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trajkovski was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Trajkovski, faced multiple charges including break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, larceny, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed in company. The circumstances of the break and enter were noted to have aggravating factors, and the defendant had a history of previous convictions. The legal issues at hand were the determination of the appropriate penalties for the offences committed, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentencing of the defendant.

The court was required to assess the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact of the offences on the victims, while also considering the defendant's plea of guilty as a mitigating factor. The court examined the objective seriousness of the offences, the moral culpability of the defendant, and the need for parity with co-offenders. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's drug addiction and whether he was a victim of a serious crime, although these factors did not significantly alter the sentencing outcome.

The Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the appropriate sentence for Trajkovski was a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 5 months. The court found that the aggravating factors, such as the defendant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences, outweighed the mitigating factors. The sentence reflected the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of the community.

The final orders of the court were that Trajkovski be sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 5 months. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the totality of the circumstances and the principles of sentencing in Victoria.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 5 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.