R v Ilic [2019] NSWDC 885

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ilic [2019] NSWDC 885 Hearing dates: 6 December 2019 Decision date: 06 December 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler DC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Non parole period of 1 year 6 months. Catchwords: SENTENCE – Armed robbery.

SENTENCE – Relevant factors on sentence - impact of armed robbery offences - vulnerable victim - desperate crime by desperate offender - accumulation – totality - background leading to early uptake of drugs - Henry guideline considered - early guilty plea - remorse – retribution - victim vindication - rehabilitation to the community - special circumstances. Cases Cited: Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Category: Sentence Parties: Daniel Ilic (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions Representation: Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)

Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms T Lasschuit (for Director of Public Prosecutions) File Number(s): 2019/00150831

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction 1. I have just dismissed Daniel Ilic's appeal against a sentence imposed by the Goulburn Local Court and confirmed the orders of the magistrate: see separate judgement. The dismissal of the appeal does not mean it must be put aside. The appeal proceedings are relevant to these sentence proceedings. They help inform a finding I have to make as to the appropriate date for commencing the present sentence, and how that sentence is structured. I have also had regard to - and admitted into these proceedings - the Sentence Assessment Report, which was before the Local Court: exhibit B. 2. The information from the Local Court appeal file, and that Sentence Assessment Report, confirms that, at the time of the commission of this offence, Ilic and his partner were itinerant. They were drug users. They were not in control of their lives, and they certainly were unable to properly care for their child. They were committing offences against the community. They were no longer part of the community. The offence for sentence today reflects a pattern of desperation, because the offence, from one perspective, was a desperate offence. 3. The inevitability of Ilic being caught by either the application of DNA technology or CCTV did not prevent this crime. The application of the principle of general deterrence, one of the matters that have to be taken into account with any sentencing exercise, did not prevent this crime. The wise words of the Chief Justice of New South Wales in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, and my sentencing remarks in other robbery sentences, which are widely reported in the local media, did not prevent this crime. It should be notorious that anyone who attempts to rob a vulnerable service provider, such as the victim of this offence, will inevitably go to gaol, and go to gaol for a long time. 4. That does not mean that courts should refrain from punishing offenders; to the contrary. Crimes of armed robbery, wherever they occur but particularly as here, where the victim is providing in a local service station and its otherwise vulnerable because of her age and her isolation, require just and appropriate punishment this includes applications of principles such as general deterrence and retribution. 5. Everyone in the community understands that if you use violence to obtain property from someone just going about their job, you will be punished, and you will be punished severely. It is also needs to be said, and said again, that crimes of armed robbery are not just offences against property to obtain property. They are offences against people. They are offences against the community. And, when people are robbed, not only the individual victim suffers, the community suffers. 6. While I do not have a Victim Impact Statement from the attendant, its absence does not mitigate the offence. To be threatened with a weapon can have a terrible impact on a victim. When such offences occur in places we all have to use, such as service stations, there can be more serious consequences. Businesses sometimes close. Workers feel vulnerable. The attendant here was aged 69. If you are working at 69, it is because you need or you want to. Matters such as this can cause them to give up working. Robberies cause communities to be fearful. And, if we can't trust others, our sense of community breaks down.