R v Astles

Catchwords: CRIME — sentencing — offences under ss 59(1), 61J and 37(1A) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — domestic violence offences — general deterrence — protection of the community — aggravating factor — prior criminal record — serious personal violence offences — Veen v The Queen (No. 2) finding — well above average risk of re-offending

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 572
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
McNaughton v The Queen (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Astles (Christopher) [2001] NSWCCA 235
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Christopher Astles (offender)

Representation: Counsel:
Mr A O’Connor (Crown)
Ms S McKensey (offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Conditsis Lawyers (offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00212721

Publication restriction: Nothing is to be published which identifies the victim or is likely to lead to the identification of the victim.

JUDGMENT

Introduction – The charges and penalties

1. The offender, Christopher Astles, appears for sentence in relation to the following five domestic violence related offences committed against the same victim:

2. Count 1: One charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

3. Counts 7, 13 and 14: Three charges of aggravated sexual assault with the circumstances of aggravation being deprivation of liberty after the offence, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). These offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

4. Count 12**:** One charge of intentionally choking a person without consent contrary to s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

5. The maximum penalty for an offence, and any standard non-parole period, provides a sentencing measure or guidepost to be balanced with all other relevant sentencing considerations. Those considerations occur within the intuitive process of sentencing. This involves synthesising the objective seriousness of the crime and the subjective circumstances of the offender to arrive at a sentence that best meets the different purposes of sentencing*.*

Form 1 offences

3. The offender has also asked for two further offences to be taken into account on two separate Forms 1. The presence of an offence on a Form 1 can mean that there is an increase in the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the principal charge, by giving greater weight to the need for personal deterrence and to the community’s entitlement to exact retribution for this other offence, for which no punishment would otherwise be imposed.

4. The Form 1 offence attached to Count 7 is intimidate with intent to cause a person to fear physical harm (Count 9) contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). This offence is a serious example of its kind and involved a threat to kill the victim and bury her at Mangrove Mountain, and where the victim believed that the offender would act on that threat, causing her significant fear. This will result in an increase in the indicative sentence for the primary charge.

5. The Form 1 offence attached to Count 13 is assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Sequence 1). This involved the offender dragging the victim by her hair, hitting her several times to the face with both hands and headbutting her to the forehead. The headbutt caused a notable lump to be visible in the days after the offending. This offence is also serious example of its kind, involving a sustained assault to the head of the victim with multiple blows. This will also result in an increase in the indicative sentence imposed for the primary charge.

Guilty Plea

6. The offender pleaded guilty on 15 May 2025, being the first day of his trial in the District Court. Given the lateness of this plea, the offender is entitled to and will receive a 5% discount on the sentence for each offence for the utilitarian value of his pleas.

Time spent in custody and commencement date

7. The offender was arrested on 3 July 2023. He was refused bail and has remained in custody. Accordingly, the offender’s sentence will be backdated to commence on that day.

The circumstances of the offending

8. There are detailed agreed facts, and the offending can be summarised as follows.

Background

9. The offender was 52 years of age at the time of the offending. The victim was 51. The victim and the offender first met each other in 1977 as they were in the same first class at primary school. They knew each other until high school and then lost contact.

10. In July 2022 the offender contacted the victim on social media and asked if she wanted to catch up. In September 2022 the victim told the offender she was travelling to Tamworth, and they arranged to meet up there. Shortly afterwards they began a relationship.

Count 1 – AOABH

11. On 25 February 2023 the victim and the offender attended a school reunion at Toongabbie. They hired a car and drove from Gosford to the reunion, arriving at about 5.30pm. During the night they both drank alcohol. By the time they left the reunion at 2am, the offender was heavily intoxicated and unable to drive, so the victim arranged for the offender to stay over at her friend’s place.

12. As the victim and the offender began walking to the friend’s address the offender hit the victim with the back of his hand to the left side of her face, causing her left eye contact to be displaced. The offender also told the victim, “You disgust me.”

13. The offender then used his right hand to push the victim on her upper left arm, causing her to fall to the ground. The victim’s right side of her face and her arms hit grass, and her legs hit concrete on the footpath they were walking on. The victim instantly felt pain in her left arm.

14. The victim told the offender that she believed there was something wrong with her left arm. The offender did not take her to hospital at the time and told her that she needed to go with him to the hire car which was parked nearby. The offender and the victim then left, and the offender drove them to his house.

15. After arriving at the offender’s house, he cuddled the victim, told her he was sorry, and they went to bed. When the victim woke up, her left arm was extremely sore, and she had very little movement in it. She also had bruising to her face. After the offender woke up, he went to a Chemist and bought the victim a sling for her arm.

16. About three days later the offender took the victim to Gosford Hospital. The victim told staff that she had a fall whilst intoxicated.

17. As a result of the assault the victim suffered a fracture to her upper arm with an associated fracture through the greater trochanter (i.e., the bone on the outside of the thigh bone at the top of her hip joint).

Events of 2-3 July 2023

18. On 1 July 2023 the offender told the victim that their relationship was over, and the victim told the offender that she wanted to get her belongings from his place. The offender gave the victim $100 to pay for petrol to get to his house.

19. At about 2.50pm on Sunday 2 July 2023 the victim drove to the offender’s house. When she arrived, the victim asked the offender where he wanted her to park, and the offender moved the victim’s car further up the road as he said she was too close to the driveway. The offender also asked the victim who knew she was at his place, and the victim told him that she had told her boss and best friend where she was.

20. The offender and the victim then spent approximately 45 minutes to one hour in the garage with the offender’s flatmate listening to music and talking. The offender and the victim then went upstairs to the loungeroom where they sat and watched television. The offender then told the victim that he was going to “get” her and “you know I am going to punish you”. The victim understood the offender to be referring to sex.

21. At approximately 6pm, the victim’s son called her, and she told him that she was at a friend’s and that she would be coming home the next day.

Form 1 – AOABH (Sequence 1)

22. The offender and the victim then went out onto the veranda where they had a smoke and a beer. The victim believed that the offender was intoxicated but did not know how much he had drunk. The victim was sitting on a chair next to the offender when he then hit her with the back of his right hand to her cheek, causing the victim immediate pain. The victim asked the offender why he had done that, and the offender responded, “Because you’re a cunt and so is your son.”

23. The offender then stood up, grabbed the victim by her hair, pulled her from the chair and said, “you are a real fucking cunt” several times.

24. The offender then dragged the victim down the stairs into the garage and sat her on a chair. The offender then began to hit the victim in the face several times with both of his hands. The victim asked him to stop and asked him what she had done wrong. The offender kept telling her, “Don’t roll your eyes.”

25. The victim was in shock, petrified and begged him to stop. The offender then said, “I will take you upstairs and punish you now. You are mine. You are not going anywhere.” The victim did not say anything as she was scared and did not want to make it worse. The offender then dragged her off the seat and towards the stairs.

26. The victim was begging the offender to stop. The offender stopped and grabbed her by both shoulders and headbutted her on the forehead, causing a lump and bruising. The victim was dazed.

Count 13 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent

27. The offender continued to drag the victim up the stairs and repeatedly called her a “cunt”.

28. The offender then dragged the victim into his bedroom where he shut and locked the door. The victim cannot recall whether the offender undressed the victim before or after she was taken into the bedroom.

29. The offender then threw the victim onto the bed, and she landed on her back. The offender then got on the bed and grabbed the rear of both of the victim’s ankles and pushed them towards the top of her head. The victim was crying and said, “I do not want this. Stop. My legs do not go that far. You are really hurting me.” The offender responded, “You are mine. I will do whatever I want with you whenever I want with you.”

30. The offender then inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina. The offender did not use any lubricant, and it caused the victim pain. The offender then let go of the victim’s legs and hit her in the face several times. The victim began to shut down as when she was begging for the offender to stop it was making the offender worse and angrier. The victim is not sure whether the offender ejaculated.

31. The offender then told the victim he would give her some time to “reprieve*”*, although when the victim went to the toilet in the ensuite the offender yelled at her while the door was open.

32. They then went back to the veranda for a cigarette. The offender then grabbed the victim by her hair, dragged her back inside the loungeroom, threw her onto the lounge and told her to, “stay there”. The offender then left the room and returned a short time later with a pair of socks that he put on the victim’s feet.

33. The offender then had a beer while they were in the loungeroom. The victim sat in silence and was scared as she feared the offender was going to continue to hurt her.

Count 7 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent

34. After the offender had finished his beer, he grabbed the victim by her hair and dragged her to his bedroom. The offender then shut and locked the door and took the victim’s dressing gown off. The prosecution relies on the shutting and locking of the door as further deprivation of liberty. The victim then repeatedly begged the offender, “Please stop. I do not want to do this. Please stop.”

35. The offender then threw the victim onto the bed. The offender then got onto the bed and pulled her legs so that they were in line with the bedhead. The offender pushed both of the victim’s legs towards her chest so that she was on her knees and told the victim, “You are going to get it now.”

36. The victim attempted to move, however, when she did, he grabbed her hair and put her face into the bed. The victim begged the offender to stop, repeating, “Please don’t do that”.

37. The offender then inserted his penis into the victim’s anus, causing the victim pain and to claw her fingers into the bed sheet. The victim is not sure how long this lasted.

Form 1 – Intimidate (Count 9)

38. Once the offender stopped, the offender rolled the victim over and slapped her in the face. The offender then said, “You are mine. You are never leaving. No one even cares about you. They would not look at you. When I am finished with you, no one will find you. I am going to take you to Mangrove Mountain and bury you.” The victim believed that the offender was going to kill her.

Count 14 – Aggravated sexual intercourse without consent

39. The offender then, again, inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina. The victim continued to plead for the offender to stop. The victim does not know how long this lasted.

40. During this sexual assault, the offender bit the victim on the left breast, causing severe bruising. Two photos of the injuries sustained by the victim were tendered and formed part of Exhibit 1 (Tab 4).

Count 12 – Intentionally choke without consent

41. The victim was then lying on her back when the offender placed two hands around her neck and squeezed tightly. The victim did not lose consciousness and told the offender that she could not breathe and the offender laughed. The offender let go after a couple of minutes. The victim was too scared to make a sound. The offender continued to have vaginal intercourse with the victim, pushing her legs above her head.

Further deprivation of liberty

42. After the intercourse had finished, the victim grabbed her dressing gown. The offender then dragged the victim by her hair to the veranda where she was sat on a chair while the offender had a cigarette. After the cigarette, the offender dragged the victim by her hair into the loungeroom and shoved her onto the lounge and told her not to move.

43. The offender then went to the kitchen and got himself a beer. While sitting on the lounge the victim heard her phone ring and placed it on the table plugged into a charger. The offender then told the victim to put her phone in the safe. When the victim asked why, the offender did not respond. When the victim asked for her phone, the offender told her he could not open the safe. At 11.46am the offender sent a text to his housemate asking him to bring the spare key for the safe. Police later recovered the victim’s phone from a small black coloured safe on the dining table in the dining room.

44. The victim was trying to stay alert, however, at some stage believes that she was either unconscious or fell asleep on the lounge. The victim woke to the offender tightening a black zip-tie around her right wrist. The zip-tie was connected to the offender’s left wrist. The victim then asked, “what are you doing” and the offender replied*, “I told you that you are not going anywhere.”* When the victim then asked, “Please take it off, I promise I will not go anywhere” the offender laughed and said*, “I told you* you are not leaving.”

45. The offender then dragged the victim from the lounge by the zip-tie to the bedroom. Once there he demanded the victim take her dressing gown off. The victim told the offender she could not do so with the zip-ties on. The offender held onto the victim and took the zip tie off to allow her to take off the dressing gown. Once she was naked the offender re-attached the zip-tie to her right wrist. This occurred shortly after 11.46am.

46. About 15 minutes later the offender fell asleep. The victim then waited for the offender to be in a deep sleep which occurred at about 12.30pm. The victim knew this as the offender was talking in his sleep. The victim started to work the zip-tie off her wrist and eventually released herself. She then slowly moved herself to the edge of the bed, and so as to not wake the offender, placed a blanket on top of the zip-ties so the offender would still feel weight on his wrist.

47. The victim then stood up, grabbed her dressing gown and left the bedroom by slowly pulling the handle on the door. The door clicked; however, the offender did not wake up. The victim then went into loungeroom to try and find her bag and keys. Seeing the offender’s mobile phone, she went onto the veranda and called 000. This phone call was made at 1.03pm.

48. The victim advised the operator what had occurred and that she needed the police. She also told the operator that she needed to hang up because if the offender saw her on the phone, he would kill her. The victim then went back inside, put the offender’s phone back and left the house. She then ran up the driveway where two men were sitting in a car. One man asked her if she was “Chris’ missus” and if “Chris did this to you.” The victim said, “yes” and asked the man to stay with her. The man stayed with her until the police arrived.

49. An ambulance was called, and the victim was admitted to Gosford Hospital on 3 July 2023. Photographs were taken of the victim’s injuries (Tab 4 Exhibit 1). The victim was discharged from the hospital on 6 July 2023.

50. The photos of the victim’s injuries show bruising to the left and right side of her face, her forehead and nose, and neck and two black eyes. The victim also had an injury to her right wrist.

Arrest and offender’s account

51. The offender was arrested at his home on 3 July 2023. When Police arrived, the offender was lying in bed asleep with a dressing gown on and open at the front. Police could see black cable ties around the offender’s left wrist.

52. When Police asked the offender why the victim’s phone was in the safe, he replied, “it’s my phone, just like that’s my car. Everything she fucking owns is mine.”

53. When asked about headbutting the victim, he responded, “she probably needs one.” And when asked directly if he headbutted her he told Police, “I can’t say that I did*…*We both drunk a lot last night…but I don’t think I would have headbutted her.” The offender told Police that the victim had a bruise on her cheek and that during the incident, he did not see her fall over. Police then asked about the “egg” sized lump on the victim’s forehead and the offender said the victim tripped down the stairs.

54. The offender was taken into custody. He declined to be interviewed and participated in a forensic procedure.

Victim impact statement

55. The victim provided and read an impact statement.

56. A Victim Impact Statement allows victims of sexual assault to express their feelings about what occurred and how the offences have affected them. It is well known that these types of offences have profound and long-lasting effects upon the lives of the victims, and they continue to experience trauma long after the assaults.

57. The impact these particular offences have had on the victim are clear from her statement. She spoke bravely and articulately about the effect these crimes have had on her life and continue to have on her every day.

58. She spoke of her struggles with anxiety, sleeping and weight loss, and the effect of her injuries on her physical appearance. She said she can no longer do her job, go to the supermarket, have a social life, walk her dog, and be the grandparent she should be. She said she lives in constant fear, and that she is not the person she was before this and never will be again. Impressively, the victim expressed her resolve to move past this and make something of her life, and said she feels a “responsibility to do all [she] can to make sure [the offender] can’t do this to anyone else.”

59. I have taken the Victim Impact Statement into account in assessing the harm done to her. However, I have been careful not to double count where emotional harm is inherent in the nature of the offences. I have also been careful not to take this statement into account in aggravating the culpability of the offender.

Criminal and custodial history

60. The offender has a substantial criminal record that includes driving, property and personal violence offences. The offender served short periods of imprisonment between 1990 and 1998 for driving offences and assault offences. The earlier assault offences were committed against his then de facto wife.

The 1999 offences

61. On 12 November 1999 the offender pleaded guilty to one count of detaining a person for advantage, two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of aggravated break and enter and commit a felony. The offender also asked for three further counts of sexual intercourse without consent, one count of break, enter and steal, one count of stealing a motor vehicle and one of driving in a manner dangerous to the public to be taken into account on Forms 1.

62. On 2 March 2000 the offender was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of thirteen years and four months made up of a minimum term of ten years and an additional term of three years and four months. The police facts for the sexual assault and kidnapping offences and the aggravated break and enter offence were tendered as part of the Crown sentence bundle (Tabs 7 and 8). The offender appealed the severity of this sentence, and his appeal was dismissed (see R v Astles (Christopher) [2001] NSWCCA 235).

63. The facts for this offending were described on his appeal as a “a most horrifying criminal episode”. They can be briefly summarised as follows.

64. On the evening of 7 May 1999, the offender, then aged 28, met the first victim in a bar. She and the offender had a meal together and the offender invited her to his home. When they arrived, the victim told the offender she was tired and wanted to sleep. When the victim refused to have sexual intercourse with the offender, he sexually assaulted her. The offender then used rope to tie up and gag the victim and left the room. When he returned, he told her that he was taking her to the mountains. He then carried her to a car and drove her to bushland in the Blue Mountains. When they arrived the offender sexually assaulted the victim in the car twice. At one point the victim managed to escape from the car and began running along a track. The offender chased the victim and after a short distance caught her. He pushed her to the ground and sexually assaulted her again. Sometime later the victim told the offender she wanted to call her father and managed to persuade him to drive her to a hotel at a nearby township. When they arrived at the hotel at around 2pm the following day the victim went and hid in the toilets. On the way, she asked for help from a patron and hotel employee and Police were called. The offender realised that the victim had called for help and left the hotel. After the offender fled he stayed in the bush for about four days.

65. On 13 May 1999 the offender broke into a house in a rural area near the Hunter Valley where the second victim lived with her husband, and took some clothing, food and alcohol. When the second victim arrived home the offender tied her up with her own pantyhose and scarf. The offender held a knife and told the woman he had stolen a car in Sydney and raped another woman. He took $40 from her purse and drove off in her car. That evening the offender was arrested following a high-speed Police pursuit.

The offender’s subjective case

Psychiatric report by Mr Knight

66. At sentence the offender tendered a psychiatric report by Mr Lee Knight, dated 9 September 2025. Mr Knight’s report sets out aspects of the offender’s background and provides a psychiatric and risk assessment. Relevant aspects can be summarised as follows.

Background

67. The offender is now 54 years old. He is currently single and has two sons from a prior relationship. He has not had recent contact with them. He owns his own home where he will return once released from custody. The offender has few supports in the community. His mother assists him with funds and regularly has contact with him. The offender was initially managed as a protected inmate after he requested to be moved following fears he would be assaulted by other inmates. He was subsequently moved to Bathurst Correctional Centre.

68. The offender grew up in Western Sydney with his sister and parents. His parents separated when he was six. His father died in 2021, and his mother is a retired nurse. The offender stated he had problems as a child and reported frequently getting into trouble. He stated that he was sexually assaulted as a child over an 18-month period by a leader of a Scouts group he attended and during the same period, by a male friend of his mother.

69. The offender stated he experienced some corporal punishment as a child but denied experiencing emotional or psychical abuse by his parents. His initial schooling appears unremarkable. However, by Year 9 he began consuming alcohol and smoking cannabis. He completed Year 10. He then started working and between the ages of 14 and 18 was employed in various industries. By 18 years old his use of alcohol had increased significantly, and he then worked in multiple short-term jobs over the next 10-year period.

70. At age 28 the offender was imprisoned for the sexual offending committed in 1999, referred to earlier. At the time he was in a relationship and remained in that relationship during his incarceration. At age 38, and six weeks after his release, he stated that his then partner unexpectedly died from a cardiac arrest.

71. The offender worked as a timber grinder, welder and spray painter in his late 30s and early 40s. He then worked in multiple short-term jobs as a panel beater. The offender had not worked in the six months prior to his arrest due to injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident in December 2022.

72. The offender has at different times in his life taken various drugs including cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine and heroin. However, the offender appears to have more regularly abused alcohol. He began drinking alcohol at age 14 and his consumption increased gradually, and he eventually began to consume up to a carton of beer, twice per week. He told Mr Knight that in the six months prior to the offending, he was drinking between 10-15 beers every day.

Past psychiatric history

73. The offender stated that he had not received psychiatric treatment in the community, although he had briefly received psychological treatment from a psychologist in 2016 after being charged with a high range PCA offence.

74. He stated that, whilst in custody in 1999, he was reviewed by a psychiatrist and reported being diagnosed with a personality disorder and depressed mood at the time. He was prescribed anti-depressant medication which he took “on and off”.

75. The offender reported that he had attempted suicide by overdose in either 2021 or 2022. He reported a history of anxiety and said he was reviewed around eight months after being incarcerated for these offences and prescribed anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medication.

Corrective Services File Notes

76. Mr Knight reviewed the offender’s Corrective Services file notes and reported that the offender made a deliberate self-harm attempt in October 2024 and was placed on at-risk status and followed up by psychological support.

77. In late October 2024 the offender was reviewed by a psychologist, who queried “serious mental illness”, writing that the offender had expressed “paranoia”. In early November 2024 a psychologist reported that following a review the offender had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication and that there were then no indicators of suicidal ideation or self-harm.

Account of the offences

78. The offender provided Mr Knight with an account of his offending. He stated that he had difficulties remembering the time surrounding the offending and that “it felt like somebody else had done it”. However, despite this, he acknowledged that the evidence was strong and that he “must believe” he offended. The offender told Mr Knight that he had a recollection of going down the stairs and, during the offending, witnessing the victim falling down the stairs. The offender estimated this was around 4am. The offender theorised he may have been in an alcoholic black-out during the period of the offending and that this might explain his poor recollection. He said he had “no idea” why he would offend in such a way; however, believed that it “was most likely in the context of being intoxicated by alcohol”.

79. The offender told Mr Knight that he was sorry he offended, and that he understood the “horror” and fear his offending would have caused the victim. He stated he would “apologise if he could” to the victim. However, he acknowledged there was nothing he could do to make it easier on the victim. The offender told Mr Knight that he considered his offending and sexual violence in general was “terrible and disgusting” and that he understood the physical and emotional harm this caused victims. The offender said he was willing to engage in sexual offence specific treatment.

80. Ultimately, the offender said there was “nothing he could say to explain the offending”, that he regretted consuming alcohol at the time of the offending and he intended to remain sober in the future and engage in suitable treatment.

Psychosexual assessment

81. During the psychosexual assessment, the offender told Mr Knight that between the ages of around 25 to 40 he briefly experienced fantasies involving sexual acts with a non-consenting partner. However, he said that this would be a “not really non-consenting partner”, explaining this as “just a passing thought” and not something he had engaged in previously. The offender also stated that whilst in the past he had “fleeting arousal” to the idea of having sex with a non-consensual partner, he was adamant this was fantasy, and the “non-consenting partner” would have to “consent” to the role play. He also reported to Mr Knight that he had a positive attitude toward women and that he did not condone any form of violence, neither sexual nor physical, towards women. Although he also stated, generally, that he felt women were not equal to men, and then attempted to qualify this by stating he believed, “in a relationship women seem to have more rights.”

Risk assessment

82. Mr Knight also undertook a risk assessment using recognised risk assessment tools. A combined assessment placed the offender as being “well above average for supervision and intervention”. An offender at this level will often have many criminogenic needs, most of which are chronic and severe. The rate of sexual reoffending for such individuals is about three to four times the average rate of reoffending for the overall population of individuals convicted of sexually motivated offences.

Diagnostic impression and recommendations

83. Ultimately, Mr Knight provided a diagnostic impression of the offender. Regarding psychiatric symptoms, the offender reported experiencing a depressed mood with associated anxiety and hypervigilance in the context of reportedly being at risk of other inmates. Mr Knight noted that this appeared to be reasonably held and not consistent with a psychotic illness.

84. In relation to the offender reporting a history of childhood sexual abuse, Mr Knight reported that the offender has received little closure from these alleged childhood traumas. Notwithstanding this reported earlier trauma, Mr Knight opined that the offender did not meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, but “likely developed maladaptive coping mechanisms when experiencing distress, either resulting from, or exacerbated by, these reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse”. Mr Knight also noted that the offender has a reasonably long history of experiencing depressive symptoms with prior suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in 2021 and 2022. However, Mr Knight further opined that the offender’s current anxiety symptoms are better explained by his experience of a depressed mood, and the toxic and volatile environment of custody, exacerbated by the additional risk of assault experienced by inmates on protection.

85. Mr Knight stated that the offender meets the diagnostic criteria for persistent depressive disorder that has been treated in custody with anti-depressant medications.

86. In relation to the offender’s history of harmful alcohol use, Mr Knight reported that the offender meets the diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder (although in remission in a controlled environment, being custody).

87. Having reviewed the offenders’ prior convictions for the 1999 offences and observing that this offending also involved a level of violence to subdue the victim that significantly exceeds that required to ensure the victim’s compliance, Mr Knight reported that despite the offender “denying sexual fantasises or arousals pertaining to pain, humiliation, or suffering of non-consenting victims, the characteristics of this type of offending, using significant violence, are suggestive of a diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder*.”*

88. Mr Knight further reported that given the offender’s denials that he found sadistic sexual acts or fantasies arousing, “it may be that Mr Astles’ presentation is consistent with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), with the off**ending driven by anger, frustration, and antisocial attitudes, rather than driven by sexual arousal.” Although Mr Knight noted that a longitudinal assessment would be required to provide diagnostic certainty.

89. Mr Knight concluded by offering a possible future treatment plan to assist in managing and treatment of the offender.

Offender’s evidence at sentence hearing

90. The offender gave evidence at the sentence hearing. During examination-in-chief the offender gave the following evidence.

91. He said that he told Mr Knight the truth during the assessment and that he had “no clear memory” of the things that happened on the night of the offending but accepts from the evidence that he must be responsible. He said that he is disgusted in his actions, that he understands how it impacted the victim and apologises for the injuries she sustained and her ongoing grief.

92. In relation to his time in custody he said that he has found it extremely stressful and asked to be put into protection due to threats from inmates. He said that he is now at the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre. He said that work and education course have been limited due to his remand status. He said that there have also been “a lot of lock-ins*, sometimes 3-4 a week. Half day and full days and it becomes part of the routine.”*

93. He confirmed that he was sexually abused by a family friend when he was around 8 years old and by a Scout official when he was 9. He said that this official was charged and went to trial. He said he gave evidence at the trial in 2002, but that the accused was found not guilty. He confirmed that he has not sought any form of psychological treatment for this trauma.

94. He said that whilst he was in custody in 2008, he took part in a sexual offending program at Long Bay and discussed these issues during his counselling. He also said that he had previously undertaken substance abuse programs whilst in custody and also attended Alcoholics Anonymous from time to time. He said he was now prepared to focus on his treatment and relapse prevention.

95. He said that he accepts that he will require psychological treatment to address the underlying issues in his life and the cause of his reoffending and why he goes back to alcohol and drug use after a period of time.

96. He said that there was a significant period of six years after his release from custody, during which he abstained from alcohol and drugs and only relapsed after losing his job following the car accident.

97. Under cross-examination the offender gave the following evidence.

98. Although he told Mr Knight that he had little recollection of the offences, he does remember the victim saying to him that she wanted to go downstairs to the garage area and smoke marijuana and that she wanted him to go with her. He recalls that they then walked down the stairs and that she slipped and hit the back of her head on the steps. He said that he then helped her to the chair in the garage.

99. He said that he recalls the incident when the victim broke her arm after the school reunion. He said that whilst he acknowledges that his action lead eventually to her injury that was not his intention, and the next day tried to get her to go to the hospital, but she refused.

100. He said that he does recall other aspects of the night of the offending, including slapping the victim to the face (while they were on the balcony) and having forceful anal intercourse with the victim. However, he maintained that he does not recall slapping the victim across the face while she was sitting in the garage, headbutting her, dragging her around the house by her hair and forcefully having sexual intercourse with her after headbutting her. He said that he did remember parts of the assault but “can’t put it together”. He also said he does not remember threatening to take the victim to Mangrove Mountain and killing her or placing both hands around her neck and choking her or putting zip-ties on the victim and taking her to his room.

101. He said he had been drinking heavily at the time, and it affected his memory. He denied that he had a greater recollection of the events of that night than he had said or that he was minimising the extent of his memory. He said that he also recalled some things that the victim had not mentioned, such as falling down the stairs or going to the service station for cigarettes.

102. He agreed that he had told Mr Knight that it felt like somebody else had committed these offences, that it doesn’t seem real and that is because it is not the kind of thing that he would do. Although he also accepted that he had done a very similar thing in 1999 to another woman.

103. When questioned about his response to Mr Knight in this respect, he said that he believed that “this sort of thing was behind me”. When it was put to the offender that he was simply seeking to blame his state of intoxication for his actions the offender said that “it’s an actual fact and part of the night”.

104. In relation to the period of time before the offending he said that he had attended Alcoholics Anonymous periodically between 2017 and 2020. He said that he was absolutely sure that he had been abstinent for 6 years prior and that he relapsed due to his back injury.

105. When the offender was asked if he believed that he had a problem with violently sexually offending against women he said that he did not believe so, “not if [he] was not under the effects of alcohol and drugs”. Although he also accepted that there must be a psychological reason for his offending as well.

106. He then accepted that he did have a problem given his previous offending but that he could only “do all I can to not fall back into alcohol and drug abuse” He also accepted that he had previously done everything he could to address the propensity he has for sexual violence against women after he was released from custody, but that he still reoffended against this victim.

Sentencing considerations

The objective seriousness of the offences

92. Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime considering its objective circumstances. The objective seriousness of offending is assessed without reference to matters personal to the offender.

Count 1 – AOABH

93. In assessing the objective seriousness of Count 1, I have had regard to the following factors.

94. The injuries sustained included a minimally displaced fracture to the victim’s upper arm with an associated fracture through the greater trochanter and bruising to her face.

95. The conduct that caused the injury was accompanied by a slap across the face and denigrating comments towards the victim.

96. The Crown submitted that the Court would also have regard to the fact the offender did not seek medical assistance for the victim for three days despite it being clear that the victim was injured. However, given the surrounding circumstances including the absence of any request by the victim to obtain treatment, I do not consider this post offence conduct as increasing its objective gravity.

97. Considering the relevant factors, I find this to be a moderately serious example of this type of offence.

Counts 13, 7 and 14 – Aggravated sexual assault

96. When assessing the objectives seriousness of the sexual assault offences, the nature of the surrounding circumstances in which the offence occurred, the character of the sexual act, the degree of physical contact, any pain caused or any force used, and the duration of the offence are all relevant considerations.

97. In assessing Count 13 I have had regard to the surrounding circumstances that include the following factors.

98. The offender had actual knowledge that the victim did not consent.

99. The offence was accompanied by threatening and abusive language, including repeatedly calling the victim a “cunt”.

100. The offender penetrated the victim’s vagina without lubricant, causing the victim pain.

101. The offence was accompanied by other violent conduct including pushing the victim’s legs towards the top of her head, dragging her by the hair and hitting her in the face several times directly after the offence. The victim’s pleas for the offender to stop only made it worse. The victim was crying at the time and said, “I do not want this. Stop. My legs do not go that far. You are really hurting me.” The offender responded, “You are mine. I will do whatever I want with you whenever I want with you.”

102. The victim was detained for a lengthy period after the offence, including being tied to the offender with zip-ties. This deprivation of liberty only ended after the victim managed to free herself, call for help and flee.

103. In light of these factors, I find this offence to be an extremely serious example of its kind.

104. In assessing Count 7 I have had regard to the surrounding circumstances that include the following factors.

105. The offender had actual knowledge that the victim was not consenting. The victim then repeatedly begged the offender, “Please stop. I do not want to do this. Please stop.”

106. The offender pulled the victim’s legs so that they were in line with the bedhead. The offender pushed both of the victim’s legs towards her chest so that she was on her knees and told the victim, “You are going to get it now.”

107. The penetration of victim’s anus involved pain, causing the victim to claw her fingers into the bed sheet. The victim is not sure how long this lasted.

108. The offence was accompanied by further physical force including the offender grabbing the victim’s hair and forcing her face into the bed. The victim continued to beg the offender to stop, repeating, “Please don’t do that”.

109. The victim was detained for a lengthy period after the offence including being tied to the offender with zip-ties. This deprivation of liberty only ended after the victim managed to free herself, call for help and flee.

110. In light of these factors, I find this offence to be an extremely serious example of its kind.

111. In assessing Count 14 I have had regard to the surrounding circumstances that include the following factors.

112. The offender had actual knowledge that the victim was not consenting.

113. The offender again, inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina. The victim continued to plead for the offender to stop. The victim does not know how long this lasted.

114. During this sexual assault, the offender bit the victim on the left breast causing severe bruising and what must have also caused the victim considerable pain.

115. The offender was pushing the victim’s legs above her head during the sexual intercourse.

116. After the intercourse had finished, the offender dragged the victim by her hair to the veranda where she was sat on a chair while the offender had a cigarette. After the cigarette, the offender dragged the victim by her hair into the loungeroom and shoved her onto the lounge and told her not to move.

117. The victim was detained for a lengthy period after the offence including being tied to the offender with zip-ties. This deprivation of liberty only ended after the victim managed to free herself, call for help and flee.

118. In light of these factors, I find this offence to be an extremely serious example of its kind.

Count 12 – Intentionally choke without consent

103. In assessing Count 12 I have had regard to the surrounding circumstances that include the following factors.

104. During the sexual assault the offender choked the victim for a couple of minutes, tightly with two hands.

105. The victim told the offender that she could not breathe. The offender laughed when the victim pleaded that she could not breathe.

106. The victim was too scared to make a sound and was fearful.

107. In light of these factors, I find this to be a serious example of this kind of offence.

Subjective factors

105. Subjective factors are personal to the offender and are relevant to sentencing purposes including punishment, personal deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of society. A range of subjective factors may also be relevant to the assessment of the offender’s moral culpability for those offences.

Criminal history – aggravating factor

106. As mentioned earlier, the offender has a record of previous convictions, and this disentitles him to leniency.

107. Further, the Crown submitted that these previous convictions include serious personal violence offences such that the offender’s criminal record also operates as an aggravating factor to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence: s 21A(2)(d) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Before this is applied, the criminal history must be one that would enliven the principles in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 ("Veen No. 2") and McNaughton v The Queen (2006) 66 NSWLR 566. Ms McKensey, counsel for the offender, conceded that such a finding was open to the Court.

108. I have considered the offender’s record including the gap between the offending in 1999 and the current offences in 2023. Notwithstanding this gap, given the nature and similarity of that conduct and the earlier offences between 1989-1999, I am satisfied that the principles in Veen (No. 2) apply.

109. To be clear, I find that the current offending illustrates a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law by the offender and accordingly, retribution, deterrence and protection of the community will have more of a part to play in the determination of the ultimate sentence to be imposed. It also it bears upon the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation.

Bugmy and mental health considerations - Moral culpability

110. An offender will be less blameworthy for an offence where the offender’s disadvantaged background, or mental condition, in some way “explains”, is connected with, or otherwise sheds light on the offending: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 572 at [44]-[45].

111. A strict causal connection between the offender’s disadvantaged background and the offending is not required before a Court can make a finding of reduced moral culpability: Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 at [153]; Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 at [27]. However, where there is a clear causal relationship between the offending and an offender’s background, the offender’s moral culpability may be significantly reduced. Where the connection is not as strong there may be less of a reduction.

112. However, it is important to note that this may not necessarily mitigate the overall sentence imposed on an offender. In Bugmy at [44] the plurality noted that an offender’s deprived background does not necessarily have “the same (mitigatory) relevance for all of the purposes of punishment”. For instance, an offender’s childhood exposure to sexual abuse and a reduced cognitive functioning may explain an aspect of their behaviour in the offending due to their inability to control that behaviour. But their inability to control or to engage in that behaviour “may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender”.

113. This offender had an unstable childhood that was also marred by two episodes of sexual abuse when he was between ages 7-9. This background will be given “full weight” on sentence, and it is relevant to a reduction of the offender’s moral culpability. In particular, because of his experiences as a child, the offender will necessarily have fewer emotional resources to guide his behavioural decisions than a person who had a “normal” or “advantaged” upbringing.

114. However, in circumstances where there is little to support a conclusion that the offender’s background and/or the sexual abuse that he experienced explains why the offender violently sexually offends against women, his moral culpability is not greatly reduced and the need for general deterrence is not moderated any more than to a small degree.

115. Further, even if contrary to this there was some connection or correlation between the offender’s childhood experience and this offending, I would consider that the need to vindicate the dignity of the victim, to express the community’s disapproval and to afford protection to the community would entirely offset the reduced need for general deterrence.

Possible explanation for the offending

116. The offender was unable to explain his own conduct. He gave evidence that he believes that it was caused by his heavy intoxication, although he accepted that there must also be an underlying psychological issue. Of course, self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating factor. Nor does it assist in explaining the nature of his repeated offending.

117. Of concern is the fact that the offender clearly has a problem with violently sexually offending against women, yet seems reluctant to acknowledge this, curiously telling Mr Knight that he has a positive attitude towards women and does not condone any form of sexual violence towards them.

118. Of greater possible significance would appear to be Mr Knight’s opinion that the offender’s conduct is suggestive of a diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder, and his denials of any such associated thoughts also raises the possibility of anti-social personality disorder.

119. However, both possibilities require a longitudinal assessment and there currently remains diagnostic uncertainty. Ultimately, there is no support for a finding that any of the offender’s mental health issues contributed to the offending in a material way and the Court is left with little understanding into the underlying cause of these awful crimes.

Mental health issues and custody

120. The offender meets the diagnostic criteria for persistent depressive disorder and has experienced depressed mood and anxiety during his time in custody. He has also experienced suicidal ideation and will require ongoing treatment. I will take these past and future mental health issues into account when determining the appropriate sentence along with the fact that these issues will make the offender’s time in custody more onerous.

Remorse and insight

121. Ms McKensey submitted that the Court would find that the offender is genuinely remorseful for his offending and has some insight into his criminogenic risks.

122. The Crown submitted that the Court could not on balance find that the offender is remorseful. The Crown points to the offender’s late pleas of guilty, and a contention that the offender was not telling the truth on a number of key issues during his evidence. In particular, the Crown submitted that the idea that the offender remembers nothing about the offences but does remember in some detail caring for the victim and assisting her is simply not credible. The Crown submitted that the offender’s evidence was disingenuous and demonstrates his unwillingness to acknowledge or face up to his conduct.

123. While I did not entirely accept the offender’s lack of memory and found his evidence difficult to reconcile, and his insight incomplete and compromised by him blaming his intoxication, there is in his evidence a sufficient basis to find on balance that the offender has accepted responsibility for his actions and acknowledged the harm he caused to the victim. I find that he is remorseful.

Rehabilitation and risk of re-offending

124. I find, consistent with the risk assessment undertaken by Mr Knight, that the offender is at a “well above average” risk of sexually motivated reoffending.

125. I also find, given the offender’s age, prior criminal offending, his compromised insight and the diagnostic uncertainty of the cause of his offending, that he does not have good prospects of rehabilitation.

Synthesis

Purposes of sentencing

126. The intuitive process of sentencing ultimately involves synthesising the objective seriousness of the crime and the subjective circumstances of the offender to arrive at a sentence that best meets the purposes of sentencing.

127. The different purposes of sentencing will often overlap and may point in different directions and reach different conclusions. Of necessity, the promotion of the rehabilitation of an offender, if it can be achieved, is the best way of ensuring the offender does not commit further similar offences. Despite the promotion of rehabilitation, a different conclusion or different synthesis may be arrived at when factoring into the sentence adequate punishment, deterrence, denunciation of the conduct and recognition of the harm to the victim. In any event, each of the purposes of sentencing are guidelines to the fixing of an appropriate sentence and none of them can, nor should, be considered in isolation.

128. I will balance all these purposes when sentencing this offender and apportion the appropriate weight to each in the process of assessing the necessary sentence.

The offending and this offender

129. The offending committed by this offender on the 2-3 July 2023 can only be described as a most cowardly and appalling example of sexual violence perpetrated by a large brutal man on his much smaller and vulnerable former partner. Over the course of what must have been an extremely terrifying night and morning, the offender detained and taunted the victim, subjecting her to multiple violent sexual acts that were painful and cruel. He treated her like she was his property, telling her that she was and that he could do whatever he wanted to her. She repeatedly begged for him to stop. He ignored her, laughed at her and threatened to kill her and dispose of her body. She had little reason to doubt that he was capable of this. It was only after fearfully making her escape that this brave woman was able seek help and the offender was arrested.

130. As mentioned earlier, this offender’s moral culpability is somewhat reduced by virtue of his background and childhood experience resulting in a moderation of general deterrence. However, that is only a minor reduction, and general deterrence remains a very important consideration for these domestic violence offences.

131. Personal deterrence will play a larger role because of the offender’s criminal history and my findings in relation to his prospects of rehabilitation and compromised insight.

132. Given the nature of this offending, significant weight will also be given to retribution, denunciation and recognising the harm to the victim, whilst also holding the offender to account for his offending.

133. Finally, if this conduct was not confronting enough, it was committed in circumstances where some 24 years earlier, this very offender committed a protracted and equally horrifying crime involving not dissimilar acts of sexual violence against a woman. Accordingly, when sentencing this offender, the weight to be given to the protection of the community is high.

Full time imprisonment

134. Having regard to the purposes of sentencing, I am satisfied that the section 5 threshold is crossed and that no penalty other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate for this case. No submission was made to the contrary.

Aggregate sentences

135. I will impose an aggregate sentence, and I must set out the sentences that I would have imposed had separate sentences been imposed for each offence.

136. After applying the 5% discount I indicate the following sentences.

137. For Count 1 (AOABH), I indicate a head sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment.

138. For Count 13 (Aggravated sexual intercourse) and taking the Form 1 offence into account, I indicate a sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 6 years.

139. For Count 7 (Aggravated sexual intercourse) and taking the Form 1 offence into account, I indicate a sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 6 years.

140. For Count 14 (Aggravated sexual intercourse), I indicate a sentence of 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 6 years.

141. For Count 12 (Intentionally choke), I indicate a sentence of 2 years and 6 months**’** imprisonment.

Concurrency and proportionality

142. When sentencing an offender for more than one offence the Court is also to have regard to the principles of totality. This requires a sentencing judge, after considering issues of accumulation and concurrency, to consider whether the overall sentence is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality and to avoid a crushing sentence. An extremely lengthy sentence may not necessarily be characterised as crushing if it reflects the total criminality of the offender’s conduct. I have had regard to these considerations.

143. Although, apart from Count 1, the offending involved a single course of conduct, there is a need for the overall aggregate sentence to reflect these individual offences and to recognise the different harm caused to the victim as a result of each offence. To reflect this, there will, to some degree, be partial notional accumulation with the indicative sentences.

Special circumstances

144. It is clear from the offender’s risk of reoffending and his unresolved mental health issues that he will require significant support and lengthy supervision if he is to reintegrate back into the community without committing further offences. For this reason, I find that there are special circumstances such as to vary the statutory ratio. However, given the length of the overall term of this aggregate, that variation will not be significant.

Orders

145. Christopher Astles, in accordance with your guilty pleas you are convicted of the five offences I have referred to.

146. Having already allowed for a 5% discount for your pleas of guilty and taking into account the matters on the two Forms 1, you are sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 18 years and 4 months**’** imprisonment commencing on 3 July 2023 and expiring on 2 November 2041 with a non-parole period of 13 years. You will be eligible for release on parole on 2 July 2036.

147. I direct that all of the offences be recorded as domestic violence offences on the offender’s record pursuant to section 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

148. Pursuant to Section 39(2B) and (2C) I also make a final apprehended violence order for the protection of the victim in this matter in terms of orders that have been provided and are by consent. That order will remain in force for the period of the non-parole period of the sentence and an additional 10 years after the offender’s earliest date of release. The “good reasons” for this different period are the nature of the offending against the victim and the ongoing fears she has expressed.

149. I am also obliged to tell you, and I am sure it will be explained to you by your lawyers, about the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), which applies to “serious offences” including the offences for which you have been sentenced.

150. In summary, this means that the State can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that you continue to receive supervision or be held in detention at the end of your sentence if the Court considers you would be a “high risk offender” who poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence.

151. It is, therefore, in your interests to engage in rehabilitation opportunities that may be offered to you in the course of your sentence.

152. I ask that a copy of Mr Knight’s report 9 September 2025 be provided to Corrective Services to assist with the offender’s treatment, rehabilitation and supervision.

**********