2 On 27 March 2004 one Shamsi telephoned the respondent's wife and left a message on her answering machine. He said that "I have been with you three times", that "I don't want you any more" and that she was "very very slutty and very very shifty" and her body is "very very smelly and very very ugly." The sentencing judge accepted that the allegations were untrue. The respondent's wife heard the message in the presence of her seven-year-old daughter. She told the respondent, who listened to the message himself.
3 The respondent armed himself with a baseball bat and enlisted the aid of one Malloy. Together they went to the house in which Shamsi was living. The couple who owned the house and their four young children were all in the house. Shamsi answered the door. A fight ensued. Shamsi retreated into the house and locked himself in a bedroom where the children were asleep. The respondent and Malloy entered the house, attacked the bedroom door with the baseball bat and assaulted Shamsi. Shamsi was dragged to the front of the house where he was further punched and kicked. Shamsi suffered a laceration to his right eyebrow and upper lip, broken teeth, a fractured rib and bruising to his chest. Shamsi was treated in hospital for five days.
4 The respondent was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of aggravated burglary, one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of damaging property intentionally and without lawful excuse. After a plea the respondent was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 15 months on the count of aggravated burglary, for a term of 15 months on the count of intentionally causing serious injury and for a term of three months on
the count of criminal damage. Three months of the sentence on the second count was directed to be served cumulatively upon the sentence on the first count, creating a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The sentencing judge wholly suspended the term of imprisonment for a period of 18 months.
5 The appellant has appealed against sentence, contending that the individual sentences and the total effective sentence are manifestly inadequate and the suspension of the whole sentence has resulted in a sentence which is manifestly inadequate. In particulars of that sole ground of appeal the appellant has alleged that the sentencing judge failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, failed to sufficiently take into account specific deterrence and general deterrence, gave too much weight to factors going to mitigation, and gave insufficient weight to maximum penalties applicable to the offences, the respondent's prior convictions, the effect of the respondent's conduct upon the victim and to the different circumstances applicable to the respondent's co-offender.
6 Malloy pleaded guilty to the same charges as those preferred against the respondent. Malloy received a total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for a period of 12 months. The Crown did not appeal against that sentence.
7 The respondent is now 39 years' old. He has 13 prior convictions from three court appearances. Apart from driving offences, the prior convictions, which were for theft and criminal damage, were in 1984.
8 The respondent co-operated with the police. He made full admissions and identified his co-offender, which led to Malloy's arrest. The respondent pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.
9 The respondent came to Australia from Scotland when he was six months' old. He left school at the end of year 11 and commenced his career as a brick layer. He completed an apprenticeship and at the age of 21 years he began conducting his own businesses. He has worked long hours and has employed as many as 15 workers at one time. The respondent has been married twice. He has two children from his first marriage and three children from his second marriage.
10 In the course of the plea a psychologist reported to the Court that in his opinion the respondent was " ... an uncomplicated, hard working Australian man who places a heavy emphasis on his employment and what it can provide in financial rewards. He places a strong value on his family and works long hours to provide for them." The psychologist said that the offences occurred in a state of considerable emotional distress. He said: