• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Procedural posture

• District Court trial, guilty verdicts delivered by jury on counts 1 and 2 (7 October 2020), plea entered to count 3 earlier (24 September 2020), sentencing December 2020.
• The offender had significant prior interactions with the criminal justice system, including prior custody and sentences for contravening AVOs and escape, which the judge treated as related background when structuring the aggregate sentence and its commencement date.

Sentence imposed

• Aggregate head sentence: 4 years and 3 months imprisonment.
• Non-parole period: 1 year and 9 months.
• Commencement of sentence: judge elected 1 January 2020 as the commencement date so as to reflect custody already served and to give effect to totality; the non-parole period was to expire 30 September 2021 and head sentence to expire 31 March 2024.
• The judge recommended supervised parole tailored to the offender's needs.

Why the court decided this way

Key legal framework applied

• The judge applied the statutory sentencing framework: purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, and the standard non-parole period regime in Part 4 Div 1A (as adjusted post-Muldrock).
• The judge emphasised the two-step movement familiar in recent sentencing jurisprudence: first assessing objective seriousness, then bringing in subjective factors to reach an overall sentence through "intuitive synthesis".

Principal factual findings driving sentence

• Objective seriousness: The judge expressly found the offending was "below mid-range" on objective seriousness. Factors informing that view included the short time-frame, absence of planning, limited physical harm, and a domestic/emotional context. These findings drove the court away from imposing a sentence at or above a mid-range benchmark (see Standard Non-Parole Period discussion).
• Subjective factors: Extensive antecedent record, substance abuse (amphetamine-type substance use disorder), impulse-control tendencies and a traumatic family history were accepted from the psychologist's report. These informed the weight given to rehabilitation and the need for supervised parole but did not change objective gravity.
• Remorse: The court found that the statutory threshold under s 21A(3) (acceptance of responsibility plus acknowledgement of harm or reparation) was not met; mere expressions of regret were insufficient, so no mitigation for remorse was given.
• Totality and credit: The offences were treated as part of a continuum of conduct arising from the same relationship breakdown. The court exercised discretion to commence the sentence on 1 January 2020 to reflect custody already served and to ensure the overall punishment conformed with the totality principle.

Methodology reiterated by the judge

• The judge soundly applied the rule that the standard non-parole period is a guidepost: the court must consider it, but departure is permitted when reasons are recorded. He emphasised that the court must identify each factor relied upon when departing and engage in the intuitive synthesis process in applying objective and subjective factors together.

Before and after state of the law

Before

• The sentencing scheme in New South Wales post-Muldrock required courts to consider standard non-parole periods for certain offences as statutory guideposts. Courts have repeatedly clarified that these are not rigid caps but matters for consideration along with all other sentencing principles.

This decision's position

• R v Broadhurst reinforces established sentencing practice: the standard non-parole period is an important statutory benchmark but not determinative. The judge applied the established approach of assessing objective seriousness first (excluding subjective personal matters unless statutorily or doctrinally permissible) and then applying subjective factors to reach an overall sentence by intuitive synthesis.
• The decision also provides an applied example of crediting and commencement choices under the totality principle where the offending is part of a continuum of behaviour and where the offender had served related custody.

After

• The judgment is not a novel reworking of sentencing doctrine; rather it is an application of accepted principles (citing Tepania, Markarian, Muldrock, Callaghan, Qutami, Imbornone). Its value is demonstrative: it shows how a sentencing judge may depart from mid-range benchmarks to allow for both the offender's subjective background and the totality of punishment, while still ensuring adequate denunciation and deterrence.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. "The standard non-parole period...represents...the non-parole period...for an offence that falls within the middle of the range of objective seriousness."

   • Plain English: The "standard non-parole period" is the default measure for an offence that is average in seriousness; it is a benchmark not an automatic entitlement.

2. "The Court is to embark upon a process of intuitive synthesis bringing to account all of the relevant objective and subjective factors..."

   • Plain English: Sentencing involves balancing what the crime objectively was like with the offender's personal situation; judges combine these in a holistic judgment.

3. "I am of the view that the objective seriousness of these offences is in each case below mid-range."

   • Plain English: The judge judged these offences to be less serious than the typical or average version of these crimes.

4. "I am not satisfied that the offender has shown that he is remorse... (s 21A(3) requirements)."

   • Plain English: The court found the offender's expressions of regret did not meet the formal legal test for remorse and so did not reduce his sentence on that basis.

5. "I have come to the view that I should commence the sentence...on 1 January 2020...to reflect the custody that he has served..."

   • Plain English: To make sure the total punishment fits the whole course of events and custody already served, the judge set the sentence to start from an earlier date, effectively giving credit for time already spent in custody on related matters.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

• Domestic context offending where the assault, robbery and intimidation arise from an emotional breakdown in a relationship, especially where the conduct is relatively short-lived and not elaborate or pre-planned.
• Offending accompanied by limited physical injury but involving coercion/intimidation and breaches of AVOs.
• Cases where the offender has significant antecedents and concurrent or antecedent custody for related events, requiring careful totality analysis and commencement-date discretion.
• Situations where psychological assessments indicate substance dependence and impulse-control issues that are relevant to rehabilitation and structuring parole/supervision, but where the offender does not satisfy statutory remorse requirements.

How later courts have treated it

• This judgment is a sentencing decision at District Court level applying established NSW sentencing law. It primarily cites and applies higher-court authorities (Tepania, Markarian, Muldrock) and recognises the need to record reasons when departing from standard non-parole periods.
• Practitioners should expect appellate courts to treat R v Broadhurst as an example of correct application of the statutory standard non-parole period regime and totality principle where fact-sensitive judgments are required. Any later treatment would assess whether the judge properly applied objective-seriousness analysis and recorded reasons for departure.

Still-open questions

• Degree of deference on objective seriousness: While this decision applies intuitive synthesis, appellate review may still scrutinise the judge's characterisation of objective seriousness; the boundary between "below mid-range" and mid-range remains fact-sensitive and may attract appeal in close cases.
• Commencement date and credit for custody in complex, overlapping proceedings: The case shows judicial discretion to choose a commencement date tied to related custody; however, systematic principles for selecting the precise commencement date when multiple unrelated sentences interact may require further appellate clarity.
• Remorse threshold in practice: The judge required clear statutory evidence of acceptance and acknowledgement for remorse to mitigate. The line between acceptable evidential demonstration and insufficient expressions of regret can remain contested where letters and program participation are tendered without an unequivocal admission in open court.
• Weight to psychological diagnoses in sentencing: The court accepted unchallenged psychological assessment on the basis of authorities permitting acceptance where the offender does not give evidence, but the limits of that acceptance when critical facts are untested may be debated on appeal in other contexts.

Concluding note

• R v Broadhurst is a clear, pragmatic application of NSW sentencing law: the standard non-parole period is a guidepost; objective seriousness must be separately assessed; subjective considerations shape the final sentence; and totality requires careful structuring of commencement dates and concurrency. For practitioners, the judgment is a useful template for arguing departures from standard non-parole periods and for structuring totality arguments where offending forms a continuum across related events.

• "Mr Broadhurst was unable to display insight into his offending behaviour, maintaining that it never occurred.
• He disagreed with the police facts and stated that the victim has fabricated her statement.
• He failed to assume responsibility for his offending behaviour and appeared to focus on justifying and minimising each offence."

1. He is attributed with a history of drug abuse commencing when he was aged 16, including periods of abstinence. He re-commenced his misuse in 2018 to cope with stress related to his growing business. He described himself as a functioning addict.
2. He said that at the time of the offending he was under the influence of ice or methylamphetamine, and this would cause him to behave in an erratic, irrational and impulsive manner. I would expect that is a fairly accurate proposition. Notwithstanding that admission he maintained that he did not behave in the manner described.
3. He denied being a violent or aggressive person despite the nature of the offences charged. He maintained that the victim fabricated the details that suggested that he threatened or assaulted her, but he conceded that the last 12 months of the relationship deteriorated to the point that they frequently argued.
4. At the time of this report he was receiving treatment and medication to address his depression and anxiety in custody and this was confirmed by St Vincent's Correctional Health which represented that he has been compliant.
5. He attributed his declining mental health in the community to stress related to his business and the deteriorating relationship with the victim. He conceded his use of illicit substances to manage his mental health concerns and is attributed with willingness to engage with professional and psychological services.
6. He has, it is observed, a pattern of similar offending with a history of contravening apprehended violence orders. He failed to display any level of empathy or insight into the impact of his behaviour. His main concern throughout the interview was how he had been treated by the victim prior to and during the offences.
7. He said that at the time of the offences he was engaged with anti-social companions who encouraged him to re-commence his drug use, in respect of which he is willing to undertake intervention; he is willing to undertake community service.
8. His response to supervision in the past has been positive. He is assessed with a medium risk of re-offending.
9. The psychologist was not required for cross-examination and although I am urged to apply a level of circumspection with regard to the untested representations attributed to the offender, in the absence of him giving evidence either in the trial or in the sentencing proceedings, upon the application of Qutami v R [2001] NSWCCA 353 and the judgement of Smart AJ, and the more recent judgement of Wilson J in Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144, I find that I am in a position to accept the premises upon which the psychologist has come to the opinions developed upon clinical assessment on two occasions and psychometric testing. Moreover what is there contained is consistent with the behaviour upon which the offender engaged on this occasion and his past offending which does reveal someone who is in need of an extended period under supervision in the community; hence my finding of special circumstances.
10. He was assessed by the psychologist on 3 November 2020 at the Correctional Centre and then by audio/visual link on 17 November 2020. The documents to which the psychologist had access are there described, and he diagnosed amphetamine type substance use disorder of moderate severity and adjustments disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.
11. He also displayed symptoms consistent with an impulse control disorder and a further psychiatric assessment was recommended. I would agree with that observation upon the material that I have before me.
12. To the psychologist he denied that he committed the offending behaviour, he maintained his innocence, and indicated his intent to consider lodging an appeal against the conviction.
13. He is 39 years of age. According to this report he is one of four children born to his parents. He reported having an older brother aged 43, who died in 2019 after surrendering to cancer. He has surviving siblings, twins, Joshua and Samantha, aged 33. He is obviously close to his siblings and was close, at least in his adult years, to his deceased brother.
14. His mother is aged 64, I note that she is in Court, as are his siblings, I think both of them, and I understand the anxiety they are experiencing seeing him in the dock facing a sentence for misconduct of which he has been found guilty. It is not overlooked by this Court that misconduct established against someone is not the subject of consequences to them alone but impacts upon family members who care for, and are concerned with, the welfare of their son and/or sibling.
15. His mother and the offender have a relatively good relationship and have had throughout their lives.
16. When he was aged 14 his parents separated because of his father's ongoing alcohol misuse and violence. There were attempted reconciliations but his father persisted in his misuse of alcohol and this always resulted in violent behaviour.
17. He spent his childhood living with his mother and his father respectively at their homes. He was subject to violence at the hands of his father. When he was about 15 years old he suffered a broken nose. He had told his father to leave the family home and in response his father head-butted the offender. He attempted to develop a relationship with his father in the years that followed but violence continued.
18. He spoke of his attempts regularly to separate his parents in an effort to cease violence and no doubt in protection of his mother.
19. He began to act out at the age of 14. Neither of his parents wanted him to live with them at that stage, and indeed his mother told him to leave her home whereupon he went to live with his father until he was 16.
20. He has had three long term relationships. These have all ended for reasons he described to the psychologist set forth in the report; the most recent is the relationship with the victim in this matter.
21. He was expelled in year 6, and then attended High School until year 9. He was below average academically, he was disruptive and was regularly disciplined, he had difficulty learning, with comprehension, with concentration, and the overall academic aspect of school.
22. This notwithstanding he has been gainfully employed throughout his life it would appear. He was first employed at McDonald's for a period of time and then spent two years in the business of vinyl carpet flooring. He began a TAFE apprenticeship. He did work as a random packer and as a truck driver. He has had 20 different jobs overall involved in vinyl carpet flooring and artificial turf installation.
23. He started his own business in 2013 as a sub-contractor for the installation of artificial turf. That is perhaps consistent with what was contained in the sentence assessment report which included contact with his employer which perhaps might have been more accurately described as the principal contractor.
24. He began using alcohol when he was aged 16. He stopped when about 21. He began smoking cannabis from about 16. He continued that until about the age of 35. He was then introduced to cocaine. He was spending up to $500 per day on that substance. He then resorted to crystal methylamphetamine, costing him about $2,000 per week. There are questions as to how he was able to fund that expense that come to mind but, as Mr Farrar said, he was a hard worker, which clearly he was on the material that I have, and it is at least possible that he had the wherewithal to fund his habit without engaging in other misconduct which in any event is not before me, or indicated by any other evidence.
25. He attended upon a medical practitioner in 2017 for symptoms of depression; he was prescribed medication for depression and for anxiety. He is currently prescribed an anti-psychotic medication and an anti-depressant. These are Seroquel and Mirtazapine.
26. He has completed a domestic violence related course. He is attributed with extreme worry and concern for his children. He has fear about their safety in light of some perception he has of his ex-partner's two nephews.
27. The traumatic history includes the diagnosis of cancer suffered by his brother which took his life. He has a friend who was murdered in Doonside, the perpetrators using a hammer and a machete. It is believed that that arose from an outstanding drug debt. Later a friend of his was killed riding a push bike when struck by a motor vehicle. He carries some guilt as a result of that because his friend was urged to ride to the shops and buy the offender cigarettes.
28. He reports having been the victim of assaults in custody, and intimidation, and had property and food taken from him. He said that one inmate attempted to sexually assault him. I have no further information regarding that and I cannot, in the circumstances, make any finding with regard to those propositions without more.
29. His mental state examination revealed a tendency to engage in external attribution when reporting the circumstances surrounding his difficult life events and relationship breakdown. He attributed blame to his ex-partners and the legal system. He has a general lack of insight into how his own decisions contributed to his current situation placing him at continuing risk of re‑offending.
30. He underwent a series of tests which revealed severe levels of anxiety and depression; no doubt these are exacerbated by his present circumstances. It is said that his offending history suggests a difficulty to control his behaviour and impulse to act consistent with an impulse control disorder.
31. He was experiencing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to records in a patient summary, from 4 and 5 November 2018. The records from the psychological service on 6 and 13 November 2018 indicate that he attended for psychological treatment that assisted him with his reintegration into society after the non-parole periods to which I have earlier referred.
32. The diagnosis I have already announced.
33. The offending history is described in the following terms at para 40: "A review of Mr Broadhurst's offending history is indicative of an individual who suffers significant behavioural inhibition deficiency, and tendency to engage in impulsive behaviours and potential decision making. The repeating of particular types of offending suggests he has poor emotion regulation when he becomes upset and/or angry and is likely to engage in acting out behaviours. 41. Acting out behaviours are consistent with impulsive control disorders: such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and intermitted explosive disorder, where the individual when becoming angry impulsively and aggressively engages in aggressive and violent behaviour. Additionally, those behaviours are also consistent with poor relational bonding with parents, exposure to violence in the family home during childhood and adolescence, delinquent behaviours and aggression in adolescence, and the ingestion of alcohol and use of illicit drugs. The assessment of Mr Broadhurst indicates a history that incorporates all of these co-varying factors, potentially placing him at greater vulnerability to continuing offending behaviour."
34. A risk assessment was performed. He has a moderate risk for general offending and a high risk for violent behaviour and spousal assault. A treatment plan was suggested.
35. The results of the specific psychometric testing are thereafter described; they are consistent and there is no need for me to rehearse all of that. The passages I have quoted in my view fairly reflect the offender with which the Court is now concerned.
36. The first additional document is that provided by his mother. She refers to the absence of a strong father figure in his life and the absence of other male support figures along the way. She writes of him being a constant beacon of support for her and her other children, and of his own children adoring him for the wonderful father that he was to them before he went into custody.
37. She writes of her domestic violence relationship which ended when her husband walked out on her. She records the offender having been struck in the head by the father and knocked unconscious, and the event when he suffered the broken nose from being head-butted by his father.
38. She writes of his business that he now owns, the loss of his friend struck by the bus, the loss of his brother who suffered cancer.
39. She attributes him as having no limit in the support that the offender gave her and her deceased son through his battle with that disease. She refers to him having purchased his mother a car, and had it modified for his brother's needs when being transported. He also provided a TV and other items to assist with his brother's confinement when burdened by the illness prior to his death.
40. She writes in the most glowing terms of her son, as one would expect. She speaks of his attitude as a father, loving and doting upon his children, and the care he provides for them when they are with him.
41. She speaks of his mental health deterioration since he has been in custody.
42. I should add, and I am reminded by Mr Farrar, of the limitations that have been imposed upon inmates by reason of the Covid-19 virus and the lost opportunity to have face to face visits in custody, which he has no doubt suffered, although I know that contact is available by way of telephone and by way of audio/visual link with limitations attaching to those arrangements.
43. I am also aware that Corrective Services have been notoriously successful in managing the risk of infection from this disease and that the arrangements that were in place have been recently modified to allow at least some contact person to person. Whether or not that has been extended to this offender I do not know.
44. The next document is from his sister Samantha. She writes in similar terms to his mother, and so too his brother, who provides his own document, including the extent to which he is endeavouring to keep afloat the business the offender started. It is not necessary to rehearse all that they have said; suffice to say that they clearly love the offender and are concerned for his welfare, and anxious to see him returned to the community at the earliest possible moment.
45. There is some additional material provided to me, first from the co‑ordinator of Chaplains at Parklea Correctional Centre speaking of the programs he teaches and which have been completed by the offender. These are the Prisoner's Journey and the Salvation Army's Positive Lifestyle Program. I accept that he has undertaken and has been successful in the achieving the benefits available through those programs.
46. The offender also provided a document. My observation I would make first of all is this handwriting is particularly neat, almost as if it was typed. It has not been typed, but he writes of the past 19 months how he has learnt so much about himself and his behaviour, and how his outlook to life was very wrong. He writes of feeling very saddened by everything that has happened and how his custodial circumstances have had a huge impact upon him and upon his loved ones.
47. There is ongoing contact with the victim consistent with what he has here written, and consistent with what she has provided in a further document to which I am about to come. He speaks of the challenges his children are having at school, how they are missing him, and grieving for him. He writes of the impact upon his mother and his siblings.
48. He writes of the opportunity he wishes to take to enhance the arrangements whereby he can co-parent with the victim, his willingness to undertake programs, to do whatever is necessary to improve himself in that regard and in other ways. I have no doubt that he has expressed a heartfelt emotion regarding his circumstances and the challenges that all are facing because of the misconduct upon which he is said to have engaged.
49. The qualification though is that there is no clear and unequivocal recognition of the wrongdoing of which he has been found guilty, and his concern and regret about circumstances which pertain does not extend so far as to demonstrate insight to the extent that he has accepted his responsibility for the misconduct which has led to these charges and his convictions.
50. His former partner, the victim, provides a document and it is appropriate that I read the entirety of this, I believe. It is addressed to this Court. "I would like to submit my foundation of submission, for a request of leniency for Garrath's District sentencing in goodwill for the children's benefit to be able to have a relationship with their father. Garrath has been in custody for well over a year, resulting in absence of the children having a father and foundation of a family environment. In the instance Garrath has done programs to help him rehabilitate and form better judgment on his life choices, he deserves a chance to show his children he is a good person. My son would benefit from his father being around, as he navigates through life referring to gaol as a normalised term, and this isn't how I want my son progressing through life. After consistent requests from the children, I believe the children should have the opportunity to have a father figure in their lives. I am not naïve to the efforts of what a District Court is here to protect, they believe Garrath made some extremely stupid careless choices, but in turn everyone deserves a chance to prove their changes. Being in custody for extensive periods, does no good to the children's upbringing or Garrath chance to sustain being a father or providing stability for his children. When court proceedings are finished, and we all go home to our normal lives and families, this is a paramount request from the children regularly to see their father for which I can now say I am comfortable requesting this from the courts. This request ultimately, increases the positive impact to the kids' childhood and also will help with rehabilitation for Garrath. Thank you for hearing my request."