R v Trajkovski [2025] NSWDC 456 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

R v Trajkovski [2025] NSWDC 456 | Case summary | Zoe

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 pursuant to s 59(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) will be dealt with on the Form 1.
The men then forced a locked bedroom door and confronted the principal occupant of the premises. Trajkovski said “You owe me money”. The unidentified man leant over Trajkovski’s shoulder and swung the axe towards the occupant. He raised his arm to protect himself and suffered cuts to two fingers on his right hand. The unidentified man swung the axe again and struck him on his right thigh causing another cut to his leg.
At that point Popovic punched the man in the face with a close fist causing him to fall on the bed where he was struck by an axe.
I am not assisted by the Agreed Facts, as they reveal that the element of actual bodily harm is made out by what could also be described as wounds; the principles in D**i Simone apply: The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383. It requires some nuance here because it may be that the use of a weapon was contemplated but not the use of an axe to cut. I cannot take into account an offence that is more serious than the one that is the subject of the count, so I sentence him on the basis that the matter,
The Agreed Facts also mention other acts of violence and threats to the occupant of the premises. He is not to be sentenced for those matters, but they give context to why he was there and indicate the level of violence that was intended.
The three home invaders then left. It is accepted that a Gucci side bag containing the occupant's wallet, keys to his car and house were taken. That is the further matter of larceny charged pursuant to s 117 Crimes Act on the Form 1.
The matter came to the notice of the police. As Trajkovski was known to the occupants, as was inevitable, he was arrested on 12 July 2023. He has been in custody ever since.

I have previously sentenced the co-offender Popovic. My starting point for his sentence was 5 years' imprisonment. There are reasons to distinguish the two men. Mr Popovic was older. He had a significant criminal history and there were matters in his background that aggravated the sentence that had to be imposed.
Popovski was more aggressive than Trajkovski. It appears that the third man with the axe was more aggressive than both of them. A submission is made that Trajkovski was less morally culpable for what occurred and less involved as he was less involved in the break and enter. I cannot accept that submission. It is clear that he was aware of what might be there. The other two had no connection with the premises.
It was his suggestion, his plan, it was not an effective plan because he was the person who was known to them. He went there knowing that there might be drugs and money, wanting drugs and possibly repayment of a debt. He went with two people with violent intent. The fact that they have carried out the acts of violence as part of their joint criminal enterprise does not absolve him of either moral responsibility or culpability for what they did. Except to the extent that I have identified that he could not be responsible for acts outside the joint criminal enterprise, such as the wounds suffered by the principal victim and the gratuitous hit by Popovic.
There are, however, reasons to distinguish the two in terms of their antecedent history and prospects for rehabilitation. They require some variation in the starting point. Popovic's starting point was 5 years with a 25% reduction. Sentencing is not meant to be strictly mathematical, but we are forced into it by the legislation. For transparency, here my starting point was 4 years and 6 months with a 5% reduction. But as I noted earlier, there are other matters that have to be synthesised when I came to that starting point, not just the facts of the matter and the guilty plea. I will turn to them.

Trajkovski was born in 1978. He had a solid and supportive family. They gave him everything he needed, particularly love and attention.
When he was a young man, he was the victim of a serious crime. He suffered a significant injury, after that his life took a turn for the worse. He received civil compensation, and he ended up (a) with money, and (b) a problem with chronic pain. As is commonly the case, sadly he dealt with that pain problem by resort to the use and abuse of illicit drugs. He has struggled with drugs since then.
He has criminal antecedents, but they are not of the scale mentioned by Popovic. He has previously been imprisoned. He is obviously not entitled to the leniency often given first offenders but the consequence of his, as Ms North said, Opioid Abuse Disorder and Substance Abuse Disorder have their genesis in that earlier accident.
In Ms North’s opinion, the commencement of the buprenorphine treatment in custody has been significant as he has never actively engaged in rehabilitation prior to that. She finds his conditions are now in remission. She believes; he should remain on that program and that he still needs drug and alcohol counselling. She makes sensible recommendations. Her report will go with the warrant to the gaol.
Trajkovski has demonstrated mild levels of anxiety but, she notes, this is consistent with his current environment. Who would not be anxious being in gaol and awaiting sentence?
His sister's affidavit confirms all the material before me; that he has a strong and supportive family and the history that led to his uptake and abuse of illicit drugs.
The use and abuse of drugs is not a mitigating factor per se but a person's history, why they took up the use of drugs, what is being done to deal with that problem, are all very relevant to this sentencing exercise.
His counsel, Mr Hart, submits, that the time in custody can meet all the purposes of sentencing, so far as its custodial component, and that he should be released into the community. This, he says, can recognise the rehabilitation progress that he has shown and enable his resolve to be tested in the community while subject to strict parole.
That is a powerful submission for special circumstances, however the minimum term he must spend in custody must also, as the Crown remind me, reflect all of the purposes of sentencing, particularly the seriousness of what occurred.
Sentences draw guidance from the maximum and the standard non-parole period. They must, by their severity, seek to vindicate the dignity of the victim of violence, in this case the homeowner. Just because he may have been involved in drugs does not change that principle. Everyone should be treated with respect.
At the same time, it appears that because of his family circumstances, because the buprenorphine program, Trajkovski is ready to be tested in the community. He is motivated, and too long a period in custody may undermine that motivation.
His family are here today. As always, they offer him support. He would be stupid not to take it; but in the past he has not done so. I do not want to be rude to you, Mr Trajkovski but if you take the opportunities offered when you are given parole, take the help of your family, you may avoid going back to gaol again. If however, due to other stressors in your life, you take up the use and abuse of illicit drugs again, well, there is a cell waiting for you but the Court's concern is primarily about repetition of crimes of violence of this nature and appropriate and just punishment.