R v Moefili

Date of orders: 14 November 2025

Decision date: 14 November 2025

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Before: Montgomery DCJ

Decision: Sentence of 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year, 5 months and 12 days.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – assault of frontline health workers in hospital mental health unit – assault nurse s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act – assault security officer s 60AE(2) – occasion actual bodily harm to security officer s 60EA(4) – recklessly wound security officer s 60AE(6) – use of knife – offender in state of drug-induced psychosis – risk of institutionalisation – 84% of adult life spent incarcerated – deprivations of early life – adjustment of parole to non-parole ratio s 44 CSP Act – backdate commencement of sentence where parole revoked on account of offences ss 47(2)(a) and (3) of CSP Act

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Assaults on Frontline Emergency and Health Workers) Act 2022 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Convery v R [2014] NSWCCA 93
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87
Farrell v R [2020] NSWCCA 195
Hala v R [2024] NSWCCA 146
Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216
Tousley v R [2021] NSWCCA 58
Veen v The Queen (No 2) 1988 164 CLR 465

Texts Cited: n/a

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Eric Moefili (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
Ms. Hile (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms. Romelingh (ODPP)

File Number(s): 2024/00230236

Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 7(b) Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act, non-publication of sensitive circumstances of childhood trauma.
Redactions of sensitive circumstances of childhood trauma and material in closed court proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The Offender is to be sentenced for the following offences committed on 21 June 2024:

2. Sequence 7 – Assault frontline health worker Chris Davies and occasion actual bodily harm in contravention of s 60AE(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) – maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

3. Sequence 8 – Assault frontline health worker Scott Houston in contravention of s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act – maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

4. Sequence 9 – Recklessly wound frontline health worker Omar Tlais in execution of duty in contravention of s 60AE(6) of the Crimes Act – maximum penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment.

5. Sequence 10 – Assault frontline health worker Guiseppe Borsellino in contravention of s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act – maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

6. The Offending occurred while the Offender was on parole for H71167531 and H72162350 – specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – robbery armed with offensive weapon. Those offences occurred on 15 January 2019 and 14 March 2019. The aggregate sentence imposed in this Court on 14 December 2022 was 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, expiring 21 June 2026, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 10 months, expiring 21 January 2024.

PLEA

3. The Offender entered pleas of guilty to the instant offending at the earliest available opportunity. He is entitled to a 25% discount on sentence for the utilitarian value of his pleas of guilty: s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“CSP”).

ANTECEDENT CRIMINAL HISTORY

4. The author of the SAR usefully provided the summary report that the Offender’s antisocial behaviours became noticed at the young age of 13 years. The report stated:

“His history of convictions includes a consistent demonstration of his serious offending including; robbery in company, take/detain person in company [with intent] to obtain advantage [aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – weapon], 5 counts of robbery armed with offensive weapon and assault occasioning ABH in company with others.”

5. I note the Offender’s antecedent history includes offences of violence against first responders and persons in positions of authority: assault prison officer in the execution of his duty in 2001; failure to comply with request to submit to search; resist or hinder Police officer in the execution of duty in 2009; and resist Police officer and assault Police officer in execution of duty in 2013. His history shows serious prior sentences on account of his serious offending, including imprisonment for 3 years commencing 2 April 2011 for break and enter – use violence; imprisonment for 6 years commencing 11 December 2014 for robbery armed with offensive weapon; before the offending for which he was on parole (sentence 6 years and 3 months) at the time of the instant offending.

6. Plainly, without ignoring his criminal history prior to these specific sentences, the Offender has been imprisoned or subject to sentence for a significant part of his recent life. It is agreed that the Offender has been incarcerated for 84% of his adult life.

7. The Corrective Services records show that, during his incarceration, prior to the instant offending, his last breach of a drug-related variety was a refusal or failure to give a drug sample on 17 April 2022. While prior drug-related breaches occurred in 2019 and 2016, and there were other breaches of those types in the preceding years, there is no record of being breached for what might be associated with drug-related behaviour in the 1 year and 9 months preceding his release to parole on 21 January 2024.

TIME IN CUSTODY

8. The Exhibit A Crown submission calculates the time spent in custody in respect of the instant offences as 1 year, 3 months and 3 days from 22 June 2024 to the date of sentencing hearing on 24 September 2025. That calculation includes the whole of the period from the revocation of parole following the instant offending while on parole. I agree with the Crown’s commencement date of that incarceration because it was at 8 AM on 22 June 2024 that Westmead Hospital informed Police that the Offender was fit to be discharged and enter into custody. He was arrested and conveyed to Parramatta Police Station. While the Agreed Facts show that the Offender had been under Police guard at Westmead Hospital overnight, after Police arrived at 11:30 PM on 21 Jun 2024, the Agreed Facts strongly infer that his conditions of retention at the hospital preceding his arrest were entirely consistent with his medical care, and without a restraint of liberty otherwise.

9. Plainly, the Offender’s incarceration since 22 June 2024 is not solely attributable to the current offending, but has been and remains incarcerated on account of the revocation of his parole consequent of the subject offending, which sentence of imprisonment does not expire until 21 June 2026.

10. The Crown Sentence Summary, first page, properly records that “nil” of his time in custody is solely attributable to the instant offending.

11. The parties submissions (MFI 1 at [21]-[22]; MFI 2 at [28]-[33]) properly put that it is open to the Court, in the exercise of discretion, to backdate the sentence for the instant offending to be partially concurrent with the balance of parole served incarcerated for the previous sentence.

AGREED FACTS

12. The Offender was born on 19 February 1985 and is presently aged 40 years. He was 39 years of age at the time of the offending and in a state of psychosis and paranoia. The offending occurred during a delay in the planned sedation of the Offender after he was admitted to a mental health ward within Westmead Hospital. He has almost no recollection of the events but accepts that he committed the offences, is apologetic and is remorseful.

13. During his conditional liberty on parole from 21 January 2024, the Offender had sought psychological assistance for his worsening mental state and to control his addiction, but services were not financially available to him. Community Corrections had tried but was unable to organise funded psychological assistance for the 5 months of his parole before the offending. He was homeless and grieving the death of his father. He relapsed into illicit drug use and committed the instant offences in a state of drug-induced psychosis.

14. The evidence does not establish whether the Offender’s parole would have been revoked, or the conditions of his parole would have been varied, if his only breach had been the relapse into use of illicit substances. Community Corrections had, by that time, located a psychological service provider, but access could not be arranged before the instant offending occurred. Following the offending, parole was revoked.

15. All 4 offences occurred during a struggle lasting about 30 seconds. Victim Borsellino, who was a hospital orderly on duty in the mental health ward, suffered a grazed arm which required no treatment. The Offender did not directly attack Mr Borsellino. Mr Davies was a security officer at the hospital. He suffered a less than 0.5 cm superficial cut to his wrist caused by the Offender lashing out with the knife as well as a less than 5 cm abrasion to the epidermis (the surface level of the skin) of the palm of one hand. Mr Davies required minor treatment. Mr Tlias, another security officer, suffered the more serious injury of a 5 mm wound when he was stabbed in the region of the left side of his face and at the left mandible. This required the wound to be stitched. Mr Tlias also suffered a rupture of his pectoralis major tendon during the struggle. He experienced pain and numbness to his left shoulder and chest. He underwent surgery. He lost 10% of his previous function of the pectoralis major tendon and may experience slight pain to his chest and shoulder in the future. Mr Houston, another security officer at Westmead Hospital, experienced pain in his left shoulder when he fell during the struggle, but did not require medical treatment.

16. On 20 June 2024, the Offender was observed by Community Corrections in Parramatta to be anxious, hearing voices and paranoid, and he had admitted to use of cocaine and methamphetamine the preceding day (see Corrective Services Breach Report). His displayed poor mental state caused Community Corrections to have him conveyed by ambulance to Westmead Hospital following an ambulance officer having assessed him as appearing mentally ill or mentally disturbed: s 20 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).

17. At Westmead Hospital, a psychiatrist assessed the Offender to be a mentally disordered person because he was experiencing a drug-induced psychosis characterised by visual hallucinations and paranoid delusions. A plan to transport him to Cumberland Hospital, being the largest mental health facility in NSW, was abandoned when the Offender became too paranoid to be transported by bus. Nurses returned him to his bedspace within the ward.

18. At 11 PM, the lights were turned off, which caused the Offender to leave his bed and enter the clinical workroom where Victim Borsellino was seated. The Offender then closed the door and held the handle. Another security guard observed the behaviour and, on his call, security guards, including Victim Tlais, entered through the other door.

19. For about 15 minutes, Victim Tlais spoke to the Offender, attempting to calm him, because the Offender repeatedly asked why the lights had been turned off and requested that he be taken by ambulance to Police. He then voluntarily exited the room with staff and was placed on a bed and wheeled to his bedspace. Nurses then advised the Offender that he needed to be sedated. He initially refused, stating that he wanted medication, but eventually agreed to be sedated by injection. As a nurse approached the Offender with the syringe, he quickly got up from the bed and removed a 14 cm bladed kitchen knife from his hoodie pocket.

20. The Offender then pulled his arm back and Victim Tlais moved to subdue him. The Offender placed his arm around Tlais’ neck and stabbed him on the left side of his face (SEQUENCE 9). Victims Davies, Houston and Borsellino moved to restrain the Offender and remove the knife from his possession, in the course of which he twice lashed out with the knife at Victim Davies, causing him a superficial cut on the wrist (SEQUENCE 7) and, as Victim Borsellino tried to take the knife, it grazed his left forearm (SEQUENCE 10). When grappling with the Offender, Victim Houston fell to the ground and landed on his shoulder, resulting in immediate sharp pain (SEQUENCE 8).

21. The Offender was taken to the ground, the knife was removed from his grip, and he was restrained by the security guards while nurses sedated him. Once sedated, the Offender was secured to his hospital bed.

22. The period between when the Offender removed the knife from his hoodie pocket and when he was taken to ground was 30 seconds.

23. Paragraph [17] of the Agreed Facts provided by the parties includes a photo of the knife, which I would describe as a standard 14 cm bladed kitchen cutting knife.

24. On 22 June 2024, the Offender was discharged into Police custody. He declined to participate in an electronically recorded interview with Police.

25. CCTV of the event was not tendered.

26. The Offender gave evidence on oath. He presented as a frank and open witness.

27. The Offender described taking a cocktail of drugs prior to experiencing the drug-induced psychosis, which caused him to be taken to Westmead Hospital. He thinks he had been drinking for a week before relapsing into drugtaking. He only realised the drugs he had taken when told following a blood test.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT – TLAIS

28. In compliance with the parties’ request voiced while Mr Tlais was in the courtroom that I read his Victim Impact Statement in chambers, I have done so. It relates to the Sequence 9 offending only. Mr Tlais did not continue work as a security officer at Westmead Hospital, where he had been employed for 3 years. He has given up his plan to become a Police officer. This is because he continues to suffer flashbacks of the event, and appreciates that, were he to have a similar experience in either of those callings, he would likely suffer more flashbacks, and his work would be hindered. He describes the horror and the shock of being stabbed in the “neck”, a sense that he had lost movement in his left arm, seeing the blood on his hand after he reached to his neck, and the recollection of the thought that he was going to die when doctors and nurses were assisting him.

29. In my view, this Victim gives a reasonable and, unfortunately, not-unexpected description of the long-term effects of the horror of being attacked with a knife.

30. I proceed, however, on the basis of the Agreed Facts which describe the wound as a 5 mm breach of the dermis and epidermis received on the left side of the Victim’s face over the mandible, not on the neck.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

31. The parties separately, and correctly, submit that the degree of violence involved in offences such as the instant offences is a material consideration.

32. The parties separately, and correctly, submit that the seriousness of the injuries sustained is a significant consideration in the assessment of the seriousness of these offences of assault.

33. While an important aspect in sentencing when determining the seriousness of offending in the nature of violent assault, as well as determining the appropriate sentence, is the result of the offender’s conduct, and the nature of any injury caused to the victim will, the manner in which the injury was inflicted, the reason for the infliction of the injury and the circumstances surrounding the injury are also relevant considerations.

34. I have here borrowed from Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216 per Bellew J (Hoban CJ at CL and Davis J agreeing) at [40]-[41] in relation to offending against s 35(2) of the Crimes Act. I do bear in mind the substantial difference that the section specifically addresses assault against frontline health workers.

35. The instant offending involved each victim in a struggle with the psychotic Offender who was holding a kitchen knife with a 14 cm blade. Each assault on the Victims was unprovoked. Mr Borsellino was a nurse on the ward. Security officers Davies, Houston and Tlais were protecting against risk of injury to the Offender and others, which, in my opinion, was also a provision of care, given that restraint in a Mental Health Unit is a not-uncommon requirement to protect patients and staff.

36. That frontline health workers going about their ordinary duties in a Mental Health Unit of a hospital are particularly vulnerable to assault by patients, and in the not-unusual circumstance of the instant offending, where the patient is in a state of less-than-normal mental control of their actions, is the statutory context of s 60AE in which objective seriousness is to be assessed.

37. The Offender concedes that, in determining the appropriate sentence, his self-induced intoxication at the time of the offending is not to be taken into account as a mitigating factor: s 21A(5AA) of the CSP. In regard to assessment of objective seriousness, the Offender submits (MFI 2 at [9]) that his state of psychosis characterised by visual hallucinations and paranoid delusions, at the time of his offending, provides an explanation for why it occurred.

38. I accept the Offender’s submission that the offending was not premeditated and occurred spontaneously when the nurse approached him with a syringe in order to sedate him. I note that Ms Georges’ expert psychological opinion is that the Offender’s reaction is best understood as a consequence of his trauma-related hyper-arousal and impaired psychological functioning, as well as his defence-mode mental health mechanisms, rather than any “calculated intent.” The Crown does not submit, and I do not find, evidence of calculated intent. But I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Offender’s underlying mental health causally contributed to his conduct. His psychotic behaviour was the result of his self-induced intoxication.

39. The vulnerability of Mental Health Unit workers to violence of patients is a further and practical basis for recognising that self-induced intoxication does not mitigate the objective seriousness of the offending.

40. In regard to the instant offences, I find no nexus between the Offender’s mental health and the offending which would mitigate the assessment of objective seriousness.

41. It is relevant that the overall offending was of a short duration of only 30 seconds.

42. An aggravating factor is that the Offender had the knife stored in his pocket.

43. Another aggravating factor is that the offences were committed while the Offender was on parole.

44. I accept, because there is no opposition to it, nor evidence to the contrary, that the offending did not take place in view of other patients, being a submission made for the Offender (MFI 2 at [9(vi)]).

45. In relation to the Sequence 7 offence, the Crown submits it is a serious example, and the Offender submits that it is not a particularly serious example of offending contrary to s 60AE(4) of the Crimes Act. The Offender lashed out twice with the knife at Mr Davies, the degree of actual bodily harm was low, involving two very small, less than 0.5 cm, superficial lacerations to his wrist, and a 5 cm-long abrasion to the palm of his hand. The injuries resulted from the Offender’s deliberate striking-out with the knife. It is not required that I specify some point in a range of seriousness. In my view, it is a serious example of offending of this type.

46. In relation to Sequence 8, the Crown submits that the offending falls within the lower range for offending against s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act, and the Offender submits it is a “not particularly serious example of this type of offending.” The struggle in which Mr Houston was engaged occurred in a brief period, and involved only one instance of physical contact. Mr Houston suffered his injury not in consequence of a direct blow delivered by the Offender, or a slash of a knife, but when he fell to the ground on his shoulder as, in the performance of his duty, he was grappling with the Offender. In those circumstances, and mindful of the relatively minor injury received, I accept the description as the offending being in the lower range of offending of this type.

47. In relation to Sequence 10, the Crown submits that the offending falls into the lower range of offending of this type. The Defence submits that the offending is “not particularly serious.” Again, the Victim – in this instance Mr Borsellino – did not suffer his injury as a direct consequence of a deliberate slash of a knife or blow directed towards him. But, in my view, the Sequence 10 offending is more serious than the Sequence 8 offending because, while the graze to his left forearm was a minor injury, it was suffered by Mr Borsellino in circumstances of his immediate proximity to the knife as he tried to take it from the Offender.

48. In relation to Sequence 9, the Crown submits that this was a serious example of offending against s 60AE(6) of the Crimes Act. The Offender submits that it was a “reasonably serious example.”

49. Mr Tlais suffered two distinct injuries to different parts of his body, resulting from the Offender’s action of wrapping his arm around Mr Tlais’ and stabbing him on the left side of his face, over the mandible: Agreed Facts.

50. Mr Tlais’ injury is far more significant than the injuries suffered by the other victims.

51. On the basis of the Agreed Facts, beyond reasonable doubt, Mr Tlais suffered a minor wound to his skin, including to the dermis, which layer of the skin tissue is below the epidermis. The dermis contains blood capillaries, nerve endings, sweat glands, hair follicles and other structures. There is no suggestion of injury to nerves, glands, hair follicles or other structures. In his Victim Impact Statement, Mr Tlais says he was bleeding profusely. I accept that, by inference of the description of the wound in the Agreed Facts, Mr Tlais was bleeding. The wound required stitches. In addition, Mr Tlais suffered temporary pain and numbness to his left shoulder and chest, regarding which an MRI scan confirmed he also suffered a ruptured pectoralis tendon, which injury has left him with only 90% of his previous ability with that tendon. He may also experience slight ongoing pain in his chest and shoulder. Both parties submit, and I agree, that the wounding and the tendon injury are part of the same offence, without violating De Simoni principles: MFI 1 at [14]; MFI 2 at [13]; T 28.25-29.5; T 30.20; T 30.5;

52. In my opinion, the Sequence 9 offending is a reasonably serious example of offending against s 60AE(6). However, Mr Tlais’ injury is not at the high range of seriousness for this type of offence. The ferocity of the attack is not in the high range for offences of this type. The section contemplates planned and purposeful attacks of savage violence as well. That the section contemplates wounding and grievous bodily harm is a statutory yardstick that contemplates injuries far more serious than those suffered by Mr Tlais in the instant offending.

AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

53. Aggravating factors include that the Offender was on conditional liberty, he being subject to parole at the time of the offending, and, as I have described, the offending involved use of a weapon. These factors aggravate the seriousness of the offending in relation to each offence.

54. I have mentioned the mitigating factors that the offending was not planned, and that the Offender entered a plea of guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. In addition to the 25% discount for early plea, I consider the Offender’s plea, alongside the other evidence considered below in relation to his subjective case, as consistent with what I find to be his heartfelt and deep remorse.

SUBJECTIVE CASE

55. The Westmead Hospital Discharge Summary, concerning the Offender’s admission at the time of the offending, records that, when being transported by ambulance prior to his admission, the Offender was becoming increasingly agitated, appeared to be responding to hallucinations, was paranoid that people with guns were running after him to kill him, and that he tried to abscond several times from the ambulance while they were en route to hospital. He told ambulance officers of considerable distress concerning family, which would be a reference to the recent death of his father, which the Community Corrections Breach Report says he was struggling to cope with, that he was homeless, that he had no income and that he was using methamphetamine and cocaine. He told the ambulance officers that he did not use drugs regularly, but admitted to seeing people in the room who he knows are not actually there. On admission, he was diagnosed to be suffering a drug-induced psychosis and a respiratory condition secondary to community-acquired pneumonia.

56. In oral evidence on oath, the Offender explained that he was sorry for his actions because he had endangered other people's lives when he did not intend to. He said that the offending would not have occurred had he been in a better state of mind. I accept his statements of apology, insight and remorse are truthful. My acceptance is assisted by the corroborative information in the Parole Board Breach Report, which confirms that the Offender had been seeking help regarding his state of mind, but could not financially afford it, prior to his relapse into substances.

57. The Community Corrections Breach of Parole Report records that, on release to parole on 21 January 2024, the Offender had expressed a readiness to undergo psychological intervention to address his patterns of maladaptive behaviour underlying his prior offending. Community Corrections determined that he would benefit from engagement with a forensic psychologist, given his complex childhood trauma and long history or incarceration. The report observed that, unfortunately, a lack of suitable and affordable services available for him presented a barrier against his engagement in psychological intervention. Community Corrections enquired of forensic psychological services, but they were unaffordable and had extensive waiting times.

58. On 16 June 2024, the Offender was assigned a clinician at a subsidised service, however, the instant offending took place before an intake assessment could be completed. Community Corrections reported that, despite the Offender’s lack of punctuality, he presented as coherent and forthcoming during behavioural discussions, which focused on how he could appropriately manage external stressors without engaging in high-risk behaviours. Throughout his interviews with Community Corrections while on parole, the Offender placed high importance on obtaining independent accommodation, and that, due to his extensive periods of incarceration, he felt overwhelmed by the amount of paperwork required to access housing support.

59. According to the Breach Report, it was only on 20 June 2024, the day preceding his offending, that, during the 2-hour scheduled interview, Community Corrections observed that the Offender was anxious when hearing voices of other clients and exhibited paranoia such that he refused to return to his sister’s address due to fear of placing her at risk. Nevertheless, he remained respectful to all staff, and at no time did he escalate or exhibit any behaviour indicative of a risk to staff safety. The Offender admitted to cocaine and methamphetamine use the day prior.

60. After he had remained in the interview room for approximately 2.5 hours, Community Corrections determined that, due to the Offender’s tendency towards violence while under the influence of substances, and the potential risk to the community, he be taken by emergency services for a mental health assessment at Westmead Hospital. Earlier, on the day of the offending, 21 June 2024, the Offender expressed to Community Corrections his willingness to enter residential rehabilitation to address his substance abuse.

61. My overall observation of the information obtained from the Corrective Services Breach Report is that the Offender was co-operating with the attempts made for his rehabilitation. It is unfortunate that he did not successfully comply with booking into the assisted accommodation which had been arranged for him, and that the medical assistance he sought in order to achieve a reintegration into life in the community faced, what the author of the Breach Report described as, “a barrier” due to the lack of affordable assistance of a forensic psychologist over those 5 months. Basically, the Offender was in the community as a homeless person, aside from some limited residential assistance provided by his sister, and had to manage his addiction without the forensic psychological assistance he required.

62. In the report of Ms Archer, an accredited Mental Health Social Worker, who has provided trauma therapy and counselling to victims of crime, dated 23 September 2025, she described the Offender voluntarily participating in 17 counselling sessions with her while being incarcerated since revocation of his parole. She said that he has engaged consistently and proactively and has completed multiple Correctional Facilities programs, including her provision of trauma-focused counselling via AVL on a fortnightly basis. She reported that the Offender:

“… has demonstrated a strong commitment to understanding himself and addressing the impact of his past traumas. His genuine curiosity and eagerness to explore his emotions and behaviours have enabled him to develop significant insight into how he manages conflict, responds to challenges and interacts with others. [The Offender] has reflected deeply on the patterns shaped by his childhood experiences and has worked diligently to move beyond them.

…

As a result of this work, [the Offender] has shown marked improvement in his ability to regulate emotions and shift from an anger-driven mindset to one focused on repairing relationships and building meaningful connections with family. He has reconnected with his son and has taken concrete steps to assume responsibility as a father. He has also worked on repairing relationships with his mother and sister, demonstrating insight into how his past behaviour affected others.

…

Based on my clinical assessment and observations, there is no evidence to suggest that [the Offender] currently presents a risk of harm to others in the community. This assessment reflects [his] history, his current functioning and coping strategies, and is intended to inform the Court’s consideration when sentencing [him]…”

63. In her report dated 18 September 2025, Ms Georges, clinical psychologist, observed no evidence of formal thought disorder and diagnosed the Offender to suffer Post-Traumatic-Stress Disorder, severe Substance Abuse Disorder, in remission while in custody, and Adjustment Disorder with Complicated Grief. Her report of the detailed history of deprivation and trauma experienced by the Offender from early life makes each of those diagnoses, in the experience of the Court, to be unsurprising. She observed the Offender to demonstrate insight into his patterns of substance abuse, trauma and offending behaviour, and to show help-seeking attitudes, acknowledging his need for continued psychological intervention. She assessed his present judgment as fair, with recognition of the role of external supports and structure in maintaining stability and abstinence from illicit substances.

64. There are two aspects of the Offender’s history reported by Ms Georges which I think are central to assessment of the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. Firstly, his harsh life background has associated him with abuse of illicit substances as a coping mechanism and, secondly, for the first time in his life, during his present incarceration, he has received regular psychological counselling, medication treatment assisting with his substance addiction, and achieved long-term abstinence.

65. The Offender was born in New Zealand, but was taken to the Pacific Islands, before later returning to commence school in New Zealand at age 7 years. He did not speak English and quickly fell behind and was bullied. He was involved in cultural disputes between groups in the school. His schooling suffered as a result.

66. He was the middle child of 7, and experienced a harsh upbringing, including experiencing his parents’ domestic violence, poverty and living in public housing, and witnessing a favourite cousin’s suicide, including his assisting his father and brother in cutting his cousin down. His father was a harsh disciplinarian.

67. At around 11 or 12 years of age, the Offender migrated to Australia to join his parents. Cultural-based clashes occurred here, too, the physical altercations being particularly with Middle-Eastern peers.

68. His parents separated. All of his siblings except one sister have criminal records, and all of his brothers have been incarcerated. He has the support of his one law-abiding sister.

69. In Australia, his education was seriously interrupted by the family regularly moving and he changing schools. The Offender was frequently suspended and expelled due to behavioural issues, including fighting. At the age of 13 years, the Offender entered juvenile detention.

70. During his juvenile detention, at 13 years of age, the Offender was [redacted]. In oral evidence, he said that he [redacted] at Reiby Youth Justice Centre (as it is now known) including [redacted]. He told Ms Georges that this trauma was the starting point of his criminal trajectory. There is no dispute that the Offender was [redacted] during that juvenile detention [redacted].

71. Ultimately, the Offender was expelled during year 10 and did not complete formal secondary schooling.

72. The Offender’s employment history is sparse, though he has worked while in juvenile detention, where he undertook cleaning training, and in the community, where he has worked in hospitality, factories and construction. His longest continuous employment was 15 months in a chicken factory when he was 15 years of age. He has obtained his painter’s trade certificate.

73. During his 5 months on parole preceding the instant offending, the Offender engaged in painting work for approximately 1 month before re-offending.

74. Sport was a major focus during the Offender’s youth, and his success in rugby union and rugby league came close to achieving professionalism, but his repeated incarceration and instability prevented him from achieving that level.

75. The Offender was a regular cannabis user by year 9 at school, and, by 15 years, he commenced regular use of amphetamine, and at the same time began using cocaine every weekend, as well as regular use of ecstasy. By age 16, he began using heroin as a “downer” to manage the come-down effects of cocaine. In the past 3 years when in the community prior to his present incarceration, crystal methamphetamine (ice) was mainly the drug he consumed, and he used it daily.

76. The Offender told Ms Georges that his periods of release from prison have been short-lived due to his drug use and reoffending.

77. The Offender was severely traumatised by the death of his father in 2023, which destabilising factor contributed towards his lack of motivation and intensification of his substance abuse.

78. The parties agree that the Offender’s institutionalisation is a significant matter in this sentencing exercise.

79. Ms Georges confirms that the medical records corroborate the Offender’s report that, prior to his present incarceration, he has received no formal psychiatric treatment or diagnosis. He did not know about mental health conditions, and he had not sought help. He told Ms Georges that he generally felt “more comfortable” in jail than out of jail, which she observed to reflect on the stability and structure of custody compared to the difficulties the Offender has faced in the community.

80. Since March 2025, during the present incarceration, the Offender has, in the assessment of Ms Georges, benefited from the counselling of Ms Archwell on a fortnightly basis, and he also attends monthly sessions with jail psychologist Mr Lao. These sessions have helped him speak more openly of his experiences and understand his patterns of anxiety and defensive responses. Ms Georges noted that the Justice Health Notes confirm his therapeutic engagement and document his trauma-related distress, low mood and disrupted sleep. The Offender has long-term suffered symptoms of anxiety, hyper-vigilance and paranoia when people looked at him or greeted him. Through the counselling, he has begun to look at his immediate “defence mode”. He has begun to develop insight into that reaction, and to recognise them as anxiety-driven responses linked to his past trauma.

81. During his present incarceration, the Offender has engaged in work, which he has found provides routine and early waking, supporting his better functioning during the day, while exercise sometimes helps in reducing stress and restlessness.

82. The LSI-R, statistical tool, indicates the Offender to fall within the high-risk category for reoffending, but Ms Georges opines at [9.6]-[9.7] that:

“… although his baseline risk is high, it remains substantially modifiable with the right supports.

…

His future risk is likely to remain elevated without structured supports, but can be substantially reduced through intensive case-management, psychological and psychiatric treatment, and strong relapse-prevention strategies. Overall, he is assessed as posing a moderate risk of future violence, with risk contingent on the success of ongoing treatment and rehabilitation supports.”

83. In Ms Georges opinion, the experience of [redacted] in Juvenile Detention at the age of 13 was pivotal in shaping the Offender’s subsequent criminal trajectory, after which he disengaged from mainstream life and escalated in his substance abuse. The experience left him mistrustful of authority, hyper-alert to threat and prone to defensive or aggressive responses when feeling unsafe. In relation to the traumas of the suicide of his 10 year old cousin, and the death of his father, Ms Georges continued at [10.14]:

“Taken together, his diagnoses explain his presentation; trauma has created longstanding hyper-arousal and mistrust, substance use has entrenched avoidance and emotional numbing, and grief has amplified despair and disconnection. The index offending is best understood as the product of these interacting conditions under circumstances of destabilisation, homelessness and intoxication.”

84. Ms Georges explains that a causal nexus between the Offender’s psychological conditions and the offending behaviour is found in the fact that his recent bereavement, estrangement from family and his homelessness was met by his heavy intoxication on ice, heroin and alcohol, leading to clouded judgment and heightened defensive responses, where he reacted in a dysregulated and violent manner. Ms Georges said at [10.15]-[10.16] that,

“The assaults and reckless wounding of health officers are best understood as occurring in a state of intoxication-driven disinhibition, trauma-related hyper arousal and impaired psychological functioning, rather than calculated intent.”

85. While I have found that the Offender’s diagnosed mental illness was not a contributing cause to his offending, Ms George’s analysis of the causes of his criminogenic behaviours is relevant to my assessment of prospects of his rehabilitation and to reducing his risk of reoffending.

86. Ms Georges reports that custody is more onerous for the Offender than for another prisoner because it is a controlled environment with surveillance and restrictions which echo the juvenile detention in which [redacted]. This reinforces his hyper-vigilance and reactivates traumatic memories ([10.24]). Nevertheless, the Offender described his present incarceration as his “best time” as he is benefitting from the counselling and treatment, his maintained abstinence and his discipline of work routine.

87. I accept the expressions of apology and remorse in the Offender’s letter to the Court dated 23 September 2025 and in his oral evidence, because the content marries well with the expert opinion evidence of Ms Archer and Ms Georges. In oral evidence, the Offender said, “Cause I – I endangered other people’s lives and that wasn’t my intention, and if I was in the right state of mind, I wouldn’t put myself or them in danger. I just don’t go around hurting people like this, and especially good people…”: T 16.35. The Offender has a “bits and pieces” recollection of the event because of his state of intoxication and psychosis. He apologised for having hurt the Victims, and explained that, when speaking to the author of the SAR, what might have been interpreted as an attempt to minimise responsibility must have been an impression conveyed because of his inability to recall the detail of the incident. As he expressed it, “The Victims are not to suffer because of my own problems.”

88. The expert opinion evidence of Ms Georges, and the expert observations of Ms Archer, support his statement that, while in jail, he has reflected on his life and is re-planning it, has remained breach-free and drug-free, and has kept his “head down” and is working so as to keep himself in a busy life routine. He said he feels “better and cleaner”, and he wants to stay like this and have a life outside of jail. He has recently spoken to the sister he identifies as his only law-abiding sibling, and arranged to be able to reside with her temporarily upon his release until he can organise other accommodation. She has told him that if he sticks to his mental health plan and abstinence, she will help him find a job. A nephew who operates a construction business has offered him work doing scaffolding and steel fixing on his release.

89. In oral evidence, the Offender stated that he intends to continue with Buvidal because it helps fight his addiction, and he will stay on it until he is given another plan or solution. He confirmed that he had never participated in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs or counselling prior to his present incarceration. In oral evidence, he said that he had never asked for help in the past, but in the future, he will be “putting my hand up to see the people that really do a good job to help people like me.”

90. When asked how he was going to stay off drugs when released, he answered that he has a program set up to continue the assistance he is presently receiving, including seeing counsellors weekly, if possible.

91. The Offender’s statements to the Court of positive plans towards rehabilitation are, in my opinion, relevant also in the context of his apology and remorse, because his expressed realisation of harm done to the Victims and the need to remain abstinent are fundamental to his remorse being genuine. Without appreciation of the context of his offending within his lifestyle, his apology would not be of much value. The Offender has by actions taken positive steps to rehabilitation already.

PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

92. The Offender frankly agreed that, prior to his offending, he had not spoken to anyone at Community Corrections regarding his fear that he would relapse into drug addiction. He answered that it was only when he lost his accommodation and had recently had to bury his father that, as he put it, he went "pear shaped".

93. In cross examination by the Crown, the Offender answered that, following his release from his present imprisonment, he will ask for help when he needs it. He intends to remain on Buprenorphine, which is currently administered by monthly injection, because it helps, in combination with counselling, to avoid relapsing into opioid abuse.

94. In short, the Offender’s evidence was that in the past he had not asked for nor received psychological consultation or medicated assistance with his addiction and mental health issues but, in the future, he will. The Crown confirmed that Justice Health Records record no prior drugs or alcohol programs have been provided.

95. Ms Georges reports that the steps toward rehabilitation taken by the Offender during his present incarceration reflect both insight and motivation for change. He realises that he must remain abstinent, and will require structured help and ongoing support, as well as a steady job, upon release.

96. A central focus of the Offender will be to rebuild his relationship with his teenage son. Ms Georges observed at [10.30] that his plans for the future are clinically significant as they align with clinical recommendations and they underscore his readiness to engage in rehabilitation. In her opinion, his “… stated goals reflect a realistic appreciation that long-term stability requires abstinence, structured psychological support, stable work and housing, and meaningful family connections.”

97. The Crown agrees that the Offender’s early deprivations of life, the suffering of [redacted] while in juvenile detention, his mental health history and his prospects of rehabilitation shown by the positive steps taken during his present incarceration, amount to special circumstances to be taken into account as some measure against his risk of future offending. The Crown also joins in the submission that those factors mean that he is not an ideal vehicle for general deterrence and lessen to some degree the need for specific deterrence. The Crown concedes that Bugmy principles are well and truly present given the deprivations and hardships of the Offender’s early life and his history.

98. The evidence, including the Offender’s admission that he did not draw to Community Services’ attention his concern that he might relapse into intoxication, is wholly consistent with him having freely chosen to succumb to his addiction and become intoxicated. Section 21A(5AA) prohibits, for the purposes of sentencing, taking into account the Offender’s self-induced intoxication in relation to facts of the offending that bear upon the objective seriousness of the offending, or the moral culpability of the offender, in such a way as to mitigate the sentence; Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 at [53]-[60].

99. The Crown points to the violence having occurred in a hospital setting; however, the fact of that environment is inherent to these specific offences.

100. In conclusion, the Crown says that the Court will arrive at a "generous finding" of special circumstances and that the sentence should be designed to recognise the Offender’s need to continue to engage with rehabilitative programs, support and continue his abstention from use of illicit drugs when in the community.

101. I assess the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation as guarded given his frequent relapses in the past, but his positive steps toward rehabilitation taken during his present incarceration, and the protective factors of him now receiving regular treatment, and that he has also been abstinent for approximately 15 months, means that he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

102. A positive factor for the Offender’s reintegration into the community is that he now has the support of his sister who will provide him with temporary accommodation.

103. The Crown agreed that it is not beyond reasonable doubt that the Offender’s parole would have been revoked if he had only relapsed into drug use. It is reasonably possible that mere relapse into drug use would have resulted in the Parole Board varying the conditions of his parole.

NEW OFFENCES

104. The parties informed the Court that their researchers have not located any caselaw on sentencing for offending against s 60AE of the Crimes Act. I invited the parties, should they choose to do so, to deliver a supplementary submission on statutory interpretation of these new offences, amongst other offences, in the Crimes Act. Counsel for the Defence delivered supplementary submissions on sentence dated 1 October 2025, for which I am grateful.

105. On 18 October 2022, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Assaults on Frontline Emergency and Health Workers) Act 2022 (NSW) came into force. The amendment to Part 3, Division 8A of the Crimes Act created new offences in relation to assaults on law enforcement officers and frontline emergency and health workers and persons who come to the aid of law enforcement officers. Then then-existing Part 3 Division 8A only concerned assaults and other actions against Police and other law enforcement officers.

106. Prior to the introduction of the relevant Bill, the NSW Sentencing Council report on assaults on Emergency Services workers, published in July 2021, reported that the criminal law in NSW did not, “effectively recognise violence against some Emergency Services workers. While there are offences and assaults and related conduct against Police officers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, rescue workers and ambulance officers, there are no offences for assaults against health workers (other than ambulance officers).”

107. The Attorney’s Second Reading Speech, on 10 August 2022, included:

“Every person should be able to feel free and safe in their workplace, including health and Emergency Services workers, who perform an essential public service for our community in difficult circumstances, and often at personal risk.

…

This Bill recognises the vital role these workers have in our community. It makes clear that assaulting them is not only reprehensible but will also attract serious criminal punishment. Acts of violence on emergency services workers and frontline workers in the course of their duties are unacceptable.

…

While it is already on offence under NSW law to assault another person, the offence charged and the maximum penalty depends on the circumstances of the offending and the injury caused. These reforms will create new, bespoke, graduated offences of assault and other actions against frontline emergency workers and frontline health workers through proposed section 60AD and section 60AE.”

108. There is nothing in s 60AE, or elsewhere in the legislation, indicating that a special or different approach to sentencing for the instant offences other than according to current orthodox principles is required. In his Second Reading Speech, the Attorney said,

“The sentence imposed by court for these offences will be subject to existing sentencing principles, including but not limited to the principles of totality, proportionality and the need to give effect to the purposes of sentencing, which include deterrence and rehabilitation.”

109. I therefore proceed to sentence without adopting any special or specific approach other than application of existing sentencing principles. I must bear in mind the bespoke character of these new s 60AE offences when considering “comparable” historical cases for assaults against law enforcement officers.

SYNTHESIS

110. The Offender’s moral culpability in relation to each offence is, in my opinion, mitigated to a significant degree because, as the Offender explained in oral evidence, as is corroborated in the Breach of Parole Report during the 5 months of his parole, which ended with the instant offending, the Offender had pursued assistance to maintain a law-abiding existence, despite his addiction. Corrective Services records of his prior incarceration, as I have observed, are consistent of him not having been breached on account of illicit substance use-type activity for a significant time prior to release to parole. On the whole of the evidence, prior to relapse into addiction during his parole, the Offender was faced with the distress of the death of his father in 2023, prior to his release in January 2024, he was homeless and unable to achieve psychological intervention required to assist him with his complex treatment and assistance needs. Indeed, Community Corrections had tried, but been unable, to deliver that assistance. Otherwise he was compliant and cooperative with Community Corrections and his parole officer.

111. The Breach Report records that the lack of suitable and affordable services available for him presented a “barrier” against his engagement with psychological intervention. The Breach Report described his conduct with his parole officer as “forthcoming” and focused on how he could appropriately manage external services, placing high importance on obtaining independent accommodation, and that, due to his extensive periods of incarceration, he felt overwhelmed.

112. Even though the offending occurred while the Offender was in circumstances of difficulty obtaining specialised assistance, that the offending occurred while the Offender was subject to conditional liberty of parole remains an aggravating factor because the purpose of parole is the opportunity to reintegrate into the community, which the Offender failed to do.

113. I have observed the seriousness of the Offender’s antecedent criminal history. That he relapsed into his addiction, resulting in his psychotic behaviour present in the offending, in combination with that history, shows that, prior to his present incarceration, he represented a high risk to community safety. However, Ms Georges expressed the opinion that his high risk baseline is “substantially modifiable with the right supports.” That his future risk is likely to remain elevated without structured supports, but can be substantially reduced through appropriate case management, psychological and psychiatric treatment, and relapse prevention strategies, justifies a sentence providing a practical opportunity for that to occur during rehabilitation: Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87 at [94]. In Ms Georges’ assessment, the Offender would pose a “moderate” risk of future violence, contingent on the success of ongoing treatment and rehabilitation supports.

114. I respectfully prefer Ms Georges’ opinion over the assessment of risk made by Ms Archer on the basis that Ms Georges’ education and training better qualify her. Ms Archer opined that the Offender’s demonstration of strong commitment to understanding himself and addressing the impact of his past traumas, and his having achieved significant insight into how he manages conflict and regulation of his emotions, means that presently there is no evidence that he presents a risk of harm to others in the community. Given the Offender’s antecedent history and addiction, common sense and experience causes me to doubt that, in the community, the Offender would not present a high risk of recidivism without the structured treatment and assistance Ms Georges described.

115. In my opinion, it is significant that the Offender’s present incarceration has provided him his first opportunity to receive regular psychological counselling and medication to treat his substance addiction. It is also significant that he has embraced counselling by Ms Archer and by Justice Health psychologist Mr Lau, achieved long-term abstinence, and committed himself to the discipline of maintaining work. There is, in these regards, significant evidentiary support for the Offender’s claim that his present incarceration his given him the opportunity to turn his behaviour around.

116. In my opinion, the special circumstance of the Offender’s positive prospects of rehabilitation requires a sentence which will not crush the opportunity for the Offender to continue to engage with these assistances during an extended parole period. An adjustment of the s 44 non-parole period/parole period ratio towards facilitating his reintegration into community life as a law-abiding citizen, and at the same time servicing the important consideration of protection of the community, is justified.

117. The Offender’s antecedent history disentitles him to leniency, but I agree with and accept the Crown submission (MFI 1 at [16]) that, in the circumstances of his deprived upbringing, it is not an aggravating factor. The expert opinion evidence supports the approach that, with the appropriate treatment and support, the chance of that antecedent criminality continuing should be reduced. As a result, the Offender’s criminal history is not illuminating or an evidentiary basis for finding a measure of his moral culpability in the instant offending before me, nor should it be found that the offending was a manifestation of a continuing disobedience of the law warranting the imposition of condign punishment to shift him and other offenders from committing like offences: Veen v The Queen (No 2) 1988 164 CLR 465 at 477-478; R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242.

118. I assess the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation as guarded because of his antecedent criminal conduct, and the risk that he might relapse into substance abuse. Stressors such as deaths of loved ones are real life experiences. He failed to tell his parole officer of his risk of relapsing into substance abuse. His evidence that in the future he would ask for help, I accept as truthful, but his addiction and antecedent history requires it be attributed a qualified practical acceptance. On the positive side, he was abstinent of substance abuse for a significant period before his release to parole. But experience dictates, as the Offender realises, that he has to learn to live long-term in the community without succumbing to his addiction, the deprivations and hardships of his life having left him inadequately equipped for life in the community, suggesting a difficult path head in his rehabilitation.

119. I agree with the submission jointly made by the parties that the Offender’s institutionalisation is a significant matter in this sentencing exercise. This is particularly because the Offender’s conduct during his present incarceration has shown him taking positive steps towards avoiding future criminal conduct. That he first experienced a term of juvenile detention at age 13 years, and has been incarcerated for, as the parties calculated, 84% of his adult life, is a special circumstance in addition to the hardship attributable to his PTSD and hyper-arousal. It points to the importance of a sentence which avoids causing him to experience hopelessness and which does not crush his present positive direction towards rehabilitation.

120. Further factors in favour of accepting the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation, as assessed by Ms Georges, are that he has the qualification of trade painter, wants to work and has arranged with a nephew to gain employment in the construction/scaffolding industry upon his release. He has the support of his law-abiding sister.

121. I find that incarceration is objectively more onerous for the Offender than for another person because he suffers PTSD consequent of [redacted] at 13 years of age.

122. I bear in mind that severity of sentence is not linear and that, for him, extending his experience of incarceration is more onerous than for another person and, at the same time, delays the opportunity of equipping him with the skills, and providing him with the support, that expert opinion evidence says he needs to achieve his rehabilitation: R v MAK & MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381.

123. The evidence shows that the trajectory of the deprivations suffered by the Offender throughout his life, and his mental illness, has, until the present incarceration, not received treatment nor expert attention. In particular, his abuse of illicit substances and his addiction have not been treated. Those factors continued to the time of the instant offending, disadvantaging his opportunity to live within the community. The Offender requires a level of treatment and supervision to integrate into the community which has not previously been made available to him. On that background, his capacity to mature and learn from experience was compromised, and it remains a feature of his makeup relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding his history of offending: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [43].

124. While recognising that the deprivations of his background do not have the same mitigatory relevance for all purposes of punishment, his early life exposure to violence, the trauma [redacted] and substance abuse have left him, at the time of his offending, inadequately equipped to deal with and control his mental illness and behavioural issues: Bugmy at [44].

125. My assessment that the Offender is truly and deeply remorseful for the instant offending fits with his displayed want to rehabilitate himself, and again, supports the need for sentence to be designed to facilitate his rehabilitation. His insight, in these regards, was displayed in his frank evidence that, prior to the instant offending, and despite the assistance he was receiving while on parole from Community Corrections, he did not speak to his parole officer about his fear that he would relapse into drug addiction and that, in the future, he would be more active in seeking assistance.

126. The evidence well justifies the Crown’s oral submission that:

“… your Honour would make a generous finding of special circumstances in this case, because there is a clear need for Mr Moefili to be subject to supervision in the community.” T.46-20.

127. The principle of proportionality requires that the sentence should not exceed what is appropriate to the gravity of the crime, having regard to the objective circumstances. Proportionality is to be applied so that a sentence should not be less than the objective gravity that the offence requires: R v McNaughton. I have found the Offender’s moral culpability in the offending to be mitigated to some degree; the deprivations of his life and previously untreated mental illness mitigate the need for general deterrence, and those factors, in combination with concern for his further institutionalisation, lessen the need for specific deterrence and for denouncement of his offending. After allowing for mitigation of sentence on the basis of the special circumstances which I have identified, the appropriate sentence must still provide adequate punishment for the offending and recognise the harm done to the victims and community: s 3A of the CSP.

128. I bear in mind historical sentences for assaults on Police officers, imposed for crimes against different provisions of the Crimes Act.

129. In Convery v R [2014] NSWCCA 93, the offender was heavily intoxicated, and had not taken her anti-psychotic medication for some time. When told by Police that if she did not quieten down she would be arrested, she reacted angrily, took a syringe from her dress, and stabbed a Constable approximately 1 cm from her left eye and punched the Constable to the face a number of times, causing severe pain to the Constable’s nose, as well as bruising and swelling. Ms Convery was an Aboriginal woman of 24 years of age who had suffered an appalling background of violence and deprivation. She suffered paranoid schizophrenia with delusional thinking, including fear of Police. Her intellectual functioning was borderline. She was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

130. In Tousley v R [2021] NSWCCA 58, the 42-year-old offender was driving an unregistered vehicle when stopped by two Police officers. As the officers attempted to restrain him, he thrashed and kicked, hitting one officer, and bit an officer on the leg. The offender was a Hepatitis-C carrier. Both officers were required to take prophylactic medication, and experienced anxiety and side effects from the medication. The indicative sentence was 1 year and 3 months.

131. More recently in Hala v R [2024] NSWCCA 146, the offender became upset with the custody officer as she approached the door of the charge room, he having told the officer he did not want to “go back inside.” The offender put the officer in a headlock and threw her to the ground. The officer sustained bruising and inflammation of her right shoulder, left knee and neck, which resolved without ongoing issues. However, she sustained a dislocated coccyx, which did require follow-up treatment. The offender was 27 years of age, had suffered adversity, hardship, socio-economic disadvantage, violence and abused substances through his formative years. The offender was genuinely remorseful. His prior convictions disentitled him to leniency. Institutionalisation was a significant consideration. At the time of the appeal, the Offender was 30 years of age and had been in custody since 21 years of age but for 8 months. The indicative sentence was 18 months with a non-parole period of 6 months. The sentence is to be viewed with another fixed term of 6 months affecting the actual time spent in prison before release to parole.

132. That the s 5 CSP threshold is crossed in relation to the instant offences is not disputed. I agree that there is no appropriate alternative sentence to full-time imprisonment available. Sentence by Intensive Correction Order (“ICO”) is not practically available, because the Offender will remain serving his sentence for H7116753 and H72162350 (imprisonment for 6 years and 3 months) until its expiry on 21 June 2026. In addition, it is my opinion that immediate release to the community under strict conditions of an ICO would not be appropriate because of his present risk of recidivism, which is being ameliorated by his positive steps towards rehabilitation during his continuing service of that sentence. Were it available to order an ICO, it is my opinion that it would be against servicing the paramount consideration of safety to the community.

133. All four of the subject offences occurred in the short period of 30 seconds of the single event of the Offender being restrained when he pulled the knife from his pocket. I agree with the parties’ submission that this is an appropriate case to proceed by way of aggregate sentence. In my opinion, having considered the statutory yardsticks of maximum terms, and allowing the 25% discount of plea, appropriate indicative sentences are:

134. Sequence 7 – Victim Davies – s 60AE(4): 8 months’ imprisonment.

135. Sequence 8 – Victim Houston – s 60AE(2): 5 months’ imprisonment.

136. Sequence 9 – Victim Tlais – s 60EA(6): 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

137. Sequence 10 – Victim Borsellino – s 60AE(2): 6 months’ imprisonment.

TOTALITY

134. While bearing in mind that each offence involved a different victim, the offences strongly comprehend the common criminality of his psychotic behaviour, which was conducted in the course of his single 30 second spree of offending. It is necessary to ensure that the aggregation of all of the sentences is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved: Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26.

135. While mindful that I must maintain an appropriate relationship between the totality of the criminality involved in the four offences, and the totality of the sentence to be imposed for those sentences, the measure of severity, as I have said, is not simply the product of a linear relationship.

136. The appropriate aggregate sentence is to be 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a significant adjustment of the parole to non-parole period pursuant to s 44 of the CSP to accommodate the best opportunity for the Offender’s rehabilitation, which also gives the best chance to reduce the risk of reoffending. I determine a single non-parole period of 1 year, 5 months and 12 days.

137. The parties acknowledge it is appropriate that I consider backdating the sentence. I recognise that backdating the Offender’s sentence in circumstance where the Offender has, since 22 June 2024, been in custody serving a balance of parole of a sentence which does not terminate until 21 June 2026, involves a broad scope of discretion: Farrell v R [2020] NSWCCA 195 at [89] and [112]; Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 at [21]-[24]. While his parole is currently revoked, there remains the prospect that he becomes entitled to release before 21 June 2026: Callaghan at [23]. There is no clear rule which will govern all cases. The circumstances that bring an offender before a Court for sentence after parole has been revoked are varied (Callaghan at [22]), and I exercise my discretion according to the specific considerations of sentence for the instant offending set out in this judgment. The sentence will commence on 22 January 2025.

ORDERS

138. The Offender is convicted of assault frontline health worker Davies against s 60AE(4) of the Crimes Act.

139. The Offender is convicted of assault frontline health worker Houston against s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act.

140. The Offender is convicted of recklessly wound frontline health worker Tlais against s 60AE(6) of the Crimes Act.

141. The Offender is convicted of assault frontline health worker Borsellino against s 60AE(2) of the Crimes Act.

142. The Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, commencing 22 January 2025 and terminating 21 July 2027. The Offender will be eligible for release to parole on 3 July 2026.

143. I recommend the following conditions for the Offender’s parole:

(i) The reports of Ms Amanda Georges, clinical psychologist, dated 18 September 2025, and Ms Archer, accredited mental health social worker, dated 23 September 2025, be provided to Corrective Services. (ii) The Offender comply with all reasonable directions of Community Corrections. (iii) The Offender be referred to a Local Medical Officer or other registered health provider for assessment and the obtaining of a Mental Health Care Plan. (iv) The Offender be referred to individual psychological therapy on a weekly basis with a clinician experienced in trauma and substance abuse. (v) The Offender be referred for regular psychiatric review as advised by his treating Registered Medical Officer. (vi) The Offender engage with community programs for treatment of substance abuse and attend peer support groups such as SMART Recovery or Narcotics Anonymous. (vii) The Offender continue Buvidal treatment to assist in management of his opioid dependence. (viii) The Offender be assisted in the obtaining of housing. (ix) The Offender be assisted in engaging with culturally appropriate community supports, including the Samoan community, and parenting support, to facilitate safe reconnection with his son.

**********

Amendments

18 November 2025

Added "where parole revoked on account of offences" into Catchwords.

18 November 2025

Amendment to Catchwords.