Mr Savic appeals the 23 May 2025 decision of Judge Hobbs in the District Court at Wellington,[1] declining to discharge him without conviction on his guilty pleas to charges of burglary (x 2),[2] and breaching a protection order (x 2).[3] The Judge convicted Mr Savic on each of the charges and sentenced him to four months’ community detention and nine months’ supervision and ordered him to pay a total of $1,050 in reparations on the burglary charges.[4]
Background
[1]R v Savic [2025] NZDC 12467 [judgment under appeal].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a).
[3]Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a).
[4]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [27] and [29]–[31].
Mr Savic is 61 years of age and has no prior criminal history. At the time of his offending, he was subject to a final protection order issued by the Family Court at Hutt Valley on 9 November 2018, in favour of the protected person, his former partner.
Judgment under appeal
After outlining the approach to an application for discharge without conviction, being if the consequences of conviction were “out of all proportion” to the seriousness of the offending,[5] the Judge noted the protection order was issued in the context of “protracted and difficult Family Court proceedings” arising from Mr Savic’s separation from the complainant.[6]
[5]At [4].
[6]At [5].
The Judge summarised the relevant background in the following way:
(a)On 31 December 2021, Mr Savic entered the home of the complainant’s friend through a back kitchen window while the occupants were absent. He took a large number of items, valued between $500 and $5,000.[7] The items taken included laptops, car keys and other items that obviously belonged to the occupant.
(b)On 29 April 2002, Mr Savic entered the complainant’s home, also through a window, while she was away with their son. He disarmed the alarm, tampered with CCTV cameras and took a large number of items, again valued between $500 and $5,000. He put them in his car and left the scene, after he was seen doing so by a member of the public.[8]
The Judge noted Mr Savic had sent text messages to the complainant after the burglaries related to requests for the return and repair of personal items, and also referred to the impact of their dispute on their children.[9]
[7]At [6].
[8]At [7].
[9]At [9].
The Judge assessed the burglary offending to be “serious”, as it involved residential properties, including one forced entry,…
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 Savic v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Savic v The King [2025] NZCA 391
Case
[2025] NZCA 391
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Goran Savic appeals the decision of Judge Hobbs in the District Court at Wellington, declining to discharge him without conviction on his guilty pleas to charges of burglary and breaching a protection order. The appeal pertains to the 23 May 2025 judgment, where Savic was convicted and sentenced to four months' community detention, nine months' supervision, and ordered to pay $1,050 in reparations. Savic, who has no prior criminal history, argues that the consequences of his conviction are disproportionate to the gravity of his offending. Specifically, he contends that his loss of employment due to his convictions constitutes a disproportionate consequence. The Crown maintains that the Judge correctly assessed the proportionality of the consequences to the offending. The Court of Appeal examines the principles of discharge without conviction and the proportionality of consequences. It notes that discharge without conviction is deemed an acquittal and is considered before entering a conviction and imposing a sentence. The test for discharge requires a judicial assessment of the gravity of the offending, the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction, and whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Court of Appeal finds no miscarriage of justice in the Judge's assessment. It endorses the Judge's evaluation of the offending as moderately serious, involving breaches of a protection order and psychological harm. The Court also agrees that the potential impact on Savic's employment, while real and appreciable, is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. The appeal is dismissed, and the application to adduce further evidence is granted in part.