DPP v Laic [2025] ACTSC 365

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: DPP v Laic Citation: [2025] ACTSC 365 Hearing Date: 13 August 2025 Decision Date: 15 August 2025 Before: Mossop J Decision: See [50] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault, choke and threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – aggravated offences – family violence – absence of victim impact statement – pleas of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, limited criminal history and protective factors – prevalence and gravity of choking and strangling as a form of domestic violence – custodial sentence of 22 months and 15 days imposed, to be served by intensive correction CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intensive correction orders – where offender assessed as not suitable for intensive correction order – where parties submit intensive correction order still available – where limited foundation for conclusion of unsuitability in assessment report – intensive correction order imposed in combination with fines and a requirement to perform community service to give effect to the purpose of general deterrence Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 11, 15, 34B, 78(5), 80 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 27, 28, 31 Cases Cited: Day v The King [2023] ACTCA 39 DPP v Howe [2024] ACTSC 178 DPP v Whitall [2025] ACTSC 111 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Branko Laic (Offender) Representation: Counsel M Howe (DPP) D Bloomfield (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Number: SCC 173 of 2024 MOSSOP J: Introduction

1. On 17 April 2025, the offender, Branko Laic, was arraigned on an indictment filed on 27 August 2024 and entered pleas of guilty to the following charges in full satisfaction of the indictment: (a) Count 1: aggravated common assault (family violence), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (SC CAN 157/2024). (b) Count 5: aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act (CAN 10586/2023). (c) Count 7: aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act (CAN 5428/2024). (d) Count 9: aggravated threat to inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence), contrary to s 31 of the Crimes Act (CAN 5429/2024).

2. The maximum penalty for aggravated common assault is imprisonment for three years. The maximum penalty for aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle is imprisonment for seven years. The maximum penalty for aggravated threat to inflict grievous bodily harm is imprisonment for seven years.

Facts

3. The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced were agreed and contained within a Statement of Facts that formed part of the prosecution sentence bundle.

4. In or about June 2023, the victim of the offending, a 25-year-old woman, was unemployed and single. She had just left a difficult relationship when she met the offender, who was 36. After two weeks of dating, the victim moved in with the offender. The pair lived together at his double storey townhouse that forms part of a duplex in Hughes.

5. On 25 October 2023, the victim and the offender argued about finances. The victim went to bed and slept in the couple’s bed. The offender slept on the couch.

6. On 26 October 2023 at about 9am, the victim woke up and saw that the offender was “still in a mood” from the night before. The victim told the offender that she would leave the following day.

7. The offender grabbed the victim’s arms with both hands and said: “well, why don’t you fucking leave now?” This was part of count 1: aggravated common assault.

8. The victim walked upstairs towards the bathroom and took her clothes off as she prepared to have a shower. The offender said words to the effect of: “you’re not allowed to have a shower!” He pushed the victim into the bathroom basin, into the vanity and then into the wall where the couple’s towels hung. This was a continuation of count 1: aggravated common assault.

9. The victim left the bathroom and started to pack her bag. The offender followed the victim and continued to yell at her. The offender grabbed her bag and shoved her against a cupboard. This was a continuation of count 1: aggravated common assault.

10. The victim returned to the bathroom and had a shower. After her shower, she left the bathroom and saw the offender sitting on the couch, still angry. She was holding her phone and her tail comb. (A tail comb is a comb with a thin handle which can be used to part or separate sections of hair.) The offender tried to take the victim’s phone from her and suggested that her ex-partner should have killed her when he attempted to take his own life.

11. The victim told the offender: “Well, the only reason you’re single and you’re 36 is because you’re gay and you’re denying it to everybody because you don’t want to embarrass your parents!”

12. The offender took the victim’s tail comb, pushed her backwards over the couch, held the sharp end of her tail comb less than 1 cm away from her eye, and said words to the effect of: “I’ll stab you in the eye with this comb”. This was a continuation of count 1: aggravated common assault.

13. The victim got up from the couch. The offender put one or both hands around her neck before pushing her around the house. While the offender’s hands were on her neck, the victim thought that he was going to kill her. After the offender let go of the victim’s neck, she experienced difficulty breathing, shortness of breath and ringing in one ear. This was count 5: aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle.

Victim impact

23. No victim impact statement was provided. The absence of such a statement does not indicate anything about the harm suffered by the victim. The agreed facts indicate that the offending was frightening and distressing. The victim was observed by the man who provided assistance to her after the incident to be shaking and crying. The offending is of such a nature that it has the potential to have long lasting and pervasive consequences for the victim.

Objective seriousness

24. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, the court is required, under s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), to take into account that all of the offences occurred in the victim's home, a place she was entitled to feel safe.

25. Count 1 (aggravated common assault) is a rolled-up offence, constituted by several acts of actual and threatened violence. It occurred as part of controlling conduct. As should be obvious, the criminality of a rolled-up common assault is greater than that of a single common assault: R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [164]. A rolled-up count may capture a series of minor physical acts, which are quite serious when taken together and considered in the domestic violence context in which they occurred. One of the aspects of the assault was the imminent threat to the victim’s eye using the tail of the tail comb. Given the rolled-up nature of the charge and the domestic violence context, this offending is in the upper end of the range of objective seriousness for a common assault.

26. Count 5 (aggravated choke) was immediately preceded by other acts of actual and threatened violence likely to render the victim particularly vulnerable and in a state of fear. The agreed facts do not disclose whether one or two hands were used. However, the effect of the choking was sufficient to cause the victim to experience difficulty breathing, shortness of breath and ringing in one ear. Having regard to the relationship between the choking offences in ss 27 and 28 of the Crimes Act, this offending is at the upper end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

27. Count 7 (aggravated choke) represented repeated conduct of this type. It involved both hands. It occurred in the context of other actual and threatened violence likely to render the victim particularly vulnerable and in a state of fear. The choking involved sufficient force to cause the victim to experience pain in her neck. This offending is also at the upper end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

28. Count 9 (aggravated threat to inflict grievous bodily harm) was a threat made in person. The threat was likely to engender significant fear in the victim, given the violence that had preceded it. The offender had a weapon at the time the threat was made, making the threat capable of immediate realisation. A picture of the glass candle which was used indicates that the threat of grievous bodily harm to the victim’s face was a realistic one. Given the range of conduct that may be covered by this offence, this is mid range offending.

Subjective circumstances

29. The offender is now 37 years old and has a minor criminal history, which is not of significance in relation to the present offending.

30. The pre-sentence report indicates that the offender described his upbringing as “positive”. The offender has stable accommodation and employment. He has been employed in real estate and, in 2017, took over his parents’ commercial cleaning business. He is also an account manager in what is obscurely and unhelpfully described in the pre-sentence report as “a private organisation”.

31. He is the president of a Serbian club in Canberra and has a positive social network.

32. He has been a regular user of cocaine. He attributes that use to the illness and death of his brother. Apart from grief and loss arising from the death of his brother, he has been mentally and physically well.

33. He accepted responsibility for the offences and expressed what the author of the pre-sentence report recorded as “an appropriate level of victim empathy”. He attributed his offending behaviour to the decline in his mental health following his brother’s illness at the time.

34. The author of the pre-sentence report indicated that the offender has a number of protective factors and the resources to lead a prosocial lifestyle. However, the author indicated that the offender would benefit from drug and alcohol treatment and a mental health assessment. Further consideration should also be given to addressing his use of violence within intimate relationships. He was assessed as suitable for a low level of intervention. He was assessed as not suitable for a community service work condition or an intensive correction order because of his unaddressed illicit substance use. For the purposes of the intensive correction order assessment, this was assessed as a “major problem with alcohol or a controlled drug”.

Pleas of guilty

35. The offender pleaded guilty to each of the offences on 17 April 2025, following a criminal case conference on 14 April 2025. He is entitled to a discount of between 15 and 20 percent on account of those pleas.

Time in custody

36. The offender spent two days in custody in relation to the offending. This will be taken into account by backdating the first sentence.

Comparable cases

37. For the purpose of identifying current sentencing practice, the prosecution submissions identified three cases: (a) DPP v Howe [2024] ACTSC 178 involved a rolled-up count of common assault in a domestic violence context, which gave rise to a starting point of eight months’ imprisonment. (b) DPP v Whitall [2025] ACTSC 111 involved a protracted incident of family violence, including a rolled-up count arising from two occasions of choking. The offender had a significant criminal history. The starting point for the choke offence was 35 months’ imprisonment. (c) Day v The King [2023] ACTCA 39 involved a protracted incident of family violence, where the offender choked the victim twice. The sentences imposed for the two choke offences (with no discount for any plea of guilty) were 15 months and 30 months respectively, at a time when the maximum penalty was five years’ imprisonment. Consideration

38. The prevalence and gravity of choking or strangulation as a form of domestic violence, and the need for such conduct be deterred and denounced, means that courts will often determine that, in order to properly give effect to the purposes of sentencing, men who choke or strangle women in a domestic violence context will need to receive a sentence of full-time detention.

39. However, given the breadth of the definitions of “choke” and “strangle”, and the varied objective and subjective circumstances, the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion may require a different outcome.

40. The most significant purposes of sentencing in the present case are general deterrence, denunciation, making the offender accountable and recognising the harm done to the victim. Having regard to the assessment of the author of the pre-sentence report, I accept that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable.

41. In my view, it is clear that the offending satisfies the threshold in s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act and, hence, a custodial sentence is appropriate.

42. So far as the individual sentences are concerned, I consider that the appropriate sentences are arrived at as follows:

Count Maximum Starting Sentence Cumulation custodial point penalty Count 1 (aggravated 3 years 8 months 6 months 6 months and common assault) and 15 days 15 days Count 5 (aggravated 7 years 14 months 11 months 8 months choke) and 15 days Count 7 (aggravated 7 years 14 months 11 months 6 months choke) and 15 days Count 9 (aggravated 7 years 4 months 3 months 2 months threat to inflict and 7 days grievous bodily harm) Total 22 months and 15 days

43. If proceeding by full-time detention, I would have set a nonparole period of 11 months, having regard to the offender’s limited criminal history and other protective factors.

44. The question is whether the sentences should be served in a manner other than by full-time detention.

45. Counsel for the offender submitted that an intensive correction order would be an appropriate disposition. Counsel for the prosecution submitted that such a disposition was available, notwithstanding the terms of the intensive correction order assessment report.

46. Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the basis for the conclusion that the offender has a “major problem with alcohol or a controlled drug” was the self-disclosing of regular cocaine use. He submitted that this was not sufficient to indicate an impediment to carrying out the obligations under an intensive correction order. Further, he submitted that the utility of an intensive correction order was more apparent in circumstances where there were issues such as illicit drug use, which could be addressed during the operation of the order, and referred to the comments of Penfold J in R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 at [43].

47. I would usually be reluctant to depart from the recommendation of an intensive correction order assessment report in circumstances where the author has not been required to give oral evidence elaborating upon the reasons for the conclusion reached. However, in the circumstances of the present case, the submissions of the parties and the limited foundation for the conclusion of unsuitability described in the report are sufficient to indicate that, pursuant to s 78(5) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, I should, notwithstanding the recommendation in the intensive correction order assessment report, consider that an intensive correction order is an available disposition.

48. However, I do not consider that, in light of the nature of the offending, a sentence served exclusively by an intensive correction order would give effect to the purpose of general deterrence, unless I combine the sentence with a requirement to perform community service and a fine or fines. A fine of up to $10,000 for each offence is authorised by s 15 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, even though no fine amount is specified in the relevant offence provisions.

49. The offender is currently subject to a 6 month good behaviour order imposed in the Magistrates Court on 1 May 2025. Section 80(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act prohibits the imposition of an intensive correction order to be served concurrently with a good behaviour order. However, s 80(2) provides an exception if the intensive correction order offence was committed before the good behaviour order offence. Such is the case in the present matter, and consequently s 80 does not prohibit the imposition of an intensive correction order. In the circumstances, I consider that combination sentences, involving service of sentences by intensive correction and incorporating a fine and a requirement to perform community service, will sufficiently meet the purposes of sentencing.

Orders

50. The orders of the Court are: (1) On the charge of aggravated common assault (family violence) (SC CAN 157/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and 15 days, commencing on 13 August 2025 and ending on 27 February 2026. (2) On the charge of aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (family violence) (CAN 10586/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 11 months and 15 days, commencing on 13 November 2025 ending on 27 October 2026, and is fined $5,000 with six months to pay. (3) On the charge of aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (family violence) (CAN 5428/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 11 months and 15 days, commencing on 13 May 2026 and ending on 27 April 2027, and is fined $5,000 with six months to pay. (4) On the charge of aggravated threat to inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence) (CAN 5429/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and seven days, commencing on 21 March 2027 and ending on 27 June 2027. (5) The sentences of imprisonment identified in orders 1-4 are to be served by intensive correction in the community pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), with the additional condition that the offender perform 100 hours of community service prior to the expiry of the last sentence. I certify that the preceding fifty [50] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: