AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 5 March 2025

R v Stojanovski

[2025] NSWSC 149

Theft & propertyPublic order & justice offences
BAIL PROPERTY OFFENCES RACIST HATE CRIME

Citation: R v Stojanovski [2025] NSWSC 149
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 March 2025
Judge: Lonergan J

Background

The accused, a 20-year-old man, was charged with 21 offences arising from events in the early hours of 21 November 2024 in Woollahra, an eastern suburb of Sydney. It was alleged that he and a co-accused drove to Tara Street, where they spray-painted antisemitic and politically charged slogans on ten vehicles and four private properties, before pouring accelerant over a vehicle and setting it alight.

Police alleged the accused drove the vehicle used in the offending. Forensic examination of that vehicle, which was left at the scene, revealed fingerprints matching the accused on both internal and external surfaces. Mobile phone tower data placed his service in the Woollahra area during the relevant period, and CCTV footage was said to show the two men working together throughout.

The accused was arrested at his home on 28 November 2024 and made no admissions. His legal representative disputed the strength of the Crown case, pointing in particular to the absence of a visible wrist cast in the CCTV footage. The accused applied for bail in the Supreme Court after charges were laid.

  • Whether the accused presented unacceptable bail concerns under s 17(2) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), including risks of failing to appear, committing a further serious offence, or endangering community safety
  • Whether those concerns, if present, could be adequately managed by bail conditions
  • The relevance of the hate-crime aggravating factor under s 21A(h) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to the assessment of the seriousness of the offending at the bail stage
  • Whether the strength of the Crown case supported a risk that the accused would flee to avoid a likely custodial sentence

Decision

Lonergan J assessed the strength of the Crown case as strong, based on the CCTV material, forensic fingerprint evidence, and cell tower data. Her Honour noted that the absence of a visible wrist cast in the footage did not, on the material viewed, meaningfully undermine the identification case. The court acknowledged this was a preliminary assessment only and not a finding of guilt.

Her Honour was emphatic that the offending was far more serious than a simple property damage matter measured by the cost of repairs. The conduct was described as planned and focused hate crimes. Racially-motivated attacks dehumanise targeted groups and destabilise community safety, engaging the aggravating factor in s 21A(h) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The court rejected the submission that the absence of racist tattoos on the accused (in contrast to his co-accused) necessarily made that aggravating factor difficult to prove, observing that racist motivation can exist without visible markers.

Despite the seriousness of the offending and the strong Crown case, Lonergan J found that the bail concerns could be managed by a strict set of conditions. Relevant to this conclusion were the accused's age, his lack of prior criminal history, strong family ties, his father's undertaking to supervise him and provide employment, and the likely length of time before sentence or trial. If bail were refused, the accused faced between nine and eighteen months in custody before resolution of the proceedings, notwithstanding his entitlement to the presumption of innocence.

The court was satisfied that, with sufficiently stringent conditions in place, the risk that the accused would reoffend, fail to appear, or endanger community safety could be reduced to an acceptable level. Bail was accordingly granted.

Orders Made

  • The accused to reside at a specified address with a parent
  • Strict curfew conditions to apply
  • Passport to be surrendered prior to release (pre-release condition)
  • The accused not to apply for a new passport or travel document
  • The accused not to go within 500 metres of any international departure point
  • No alcohol consumption; no entry to licensed premises other than licensed restaurants
  • No illegal or non-prescribed drugs
  • No contact with co-accused Mohammed Farhat or Adam Hawi, by any means
  • No contact with any person identified as a prosecution witness (other than serving police officers)
  • Not to enter the suburb of Woollahra
  • Limited to one mobile telephone service and one SIM card; password, PIN, service number and IMEI to be provided to police within 24 hours of taking possession of any such service
  • Required to present at the front door of the nominated address on direction of a police officer to confirm compliance with curfew, drug, and alcohol conditions
  • Required to undergo non-invasive drug and alcohol testing on police direction

Key Takeaways

  • Racially-motivated property offences were characterised by Lonergan J as serious crimes going well beyond their economic impact, engaging the hate-crime aggravating factor under s 21A(h) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and warranting treatment as offences that render the community unsafe.

  • The absence of outwardly visible indicators of racist views (such as relevant tattoos) does not preclude a finding of racist motivation under s 21A(h); the court noted that racist motivation can exist without being overtly displayed prior to offending.

  • Under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), where none of the charges trigger a "show cause" requirement, the court's task is to assess bail concerns and determine whether conditions can reduce any unacceptable risk to an acceptable level.

  • Refusing bail in circumstances where an accused faces nine to eighteen months in custody before sentence or trial carries significant weight, particularly for a young, first-time offender entitled to the presumption of innocence.

  • Bail concerns arising from serious offending and a strong Crown case are not automatically unmanageable. The court's assessment of personal circumstances, including family support and supervision arrangements, informed its conclusion that conditions could adequately address the identified risks.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 17(2), 18(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(h)

Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.