R v Zdravkovic

Case [2017] ACTSC 70


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Zdravkovic

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 70

Hearing Dates:

20 February 2017; 1 March 2017

DecisionDate:

23 March 2017

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [42]-[44] below

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – act of retribution, response to provocation or gratuitous attack – gratuitous attack and importance of general deterrence and denunciation – alcohol abuse – relevance of community protection.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32(1)(a)

Cases Cited:

R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

David Zdravkovic (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K McCann (Crown)

Mr R Livingston (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Kim Bolas Legal Group (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 8 of 2015; SCC 10 of 2015

The offence

  1. David Zdravkovic has pleaded guilty to one count each of aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The burglary offence arises under s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 20 years. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence arises under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

  1. In sentencing Mr Zdravkovic for the aggravated burglary, I am also asked to take into account an offence of driving while disqualified, as a repeat offender. This offence arises under s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) and, for a repeat offender, carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for one year.

The incident

  1. The incident from which these charges arose took place on 13 October 2014.  Mr Zdravkovic and the victim live quite close to each other.  Some days before the incident, the victim had borrowed $20 from Mr Zdravkovic, which he paid back the day before the incident. On 13 October 2014, Mr Zdravkovic found the victim outside the victim's townhouse, followed him into the house despite the victim's efforts to prevent his entry, and demanded the return of the $20.  When the victim said that he had previously repaid the money, Mr Zdravkovic subjected him to a sustained attack, in which he punched the victim in the head three or four times, hit him several times with a metal broom handle (hard enough to bend the broom handle) as the victim lay on the floor curled in a foetal position, and then produced a large kitchen knife, held it to the victim's face, and threatened to cut out the victim's eye.  Mr Zdravkovic then left the victim's house.

  1. The victim suffered severe bruising to his face, ear, arms, and one shoulder, a wound to his nose, and a cut to one foot. 

  1. Some time after Mr Zdravkovic left the victim's home, the victim called an ambulance, and police were then notified of the incident.  Mr Zdravkovic was arrested…

Continue reading R v Zdravkovic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Zdravkovic [2017] ACTSC 70
Case
[2017] ACTSC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Zdravkovic was heard in a court where the defendant, Zdravkovic, was charged with aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The defendant entered a residence with the intent to commit an act of retribution, which escalated into a violent confrontation. The dispute centred on whether the assault was a retaliatory act, a response to provocation, or a gratuitous attack, and the appropriate sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent and denunciation to the community.

The court was tasked with determining the nature of the assault, the role of alcohol in influencing Zdravkovic's actions, and the relevance of community protection in sentencing. The key issues involved assessing whether the attack was premeditated, provoked, or entirely unprovoked, and understanding the impact of the defendant's alcohol abuse on his culpability. The court also considered the principles of general deterrence and denunciation in formulating an appropriate sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the defendant's background. It found that the assault was not a mere response to provocation but rather a gratuitous attack, exacerbated by the defendant's alcohol consumption. The court emphasised the importance of sentencing that not only punishes the offender but also serves to protect the community by deterring similar acts in the future. Given these findings, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that reflects the gravity of the offence and upholds the principles of justice.

The final orders, detailed in paragraphs [42] to [44], outline the specific sentence imposed on Zdravkovic, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and denunciation, alongside the defendant's personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [42]-[44] below

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.