R v Paulson

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

1. The first substantive count in the sequence of offences is the charge under s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, namely, detaining for advantage. The particulars of this offence which are relied upon are that the detention was undertaken with the intention of obtaining an advantage, namely, to stop the victim from contacting Police in circumstances where the offender was in her home in contravention of an existing Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.
2. The Court must be cautious not to inflict double punishment with respect to the reason that the victim would have gone to Police as the breach of the apprehended violence order is itself the subject of a separate charge under s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. However, those circumstances do provide the context in which the other offending occurred in the victim's home.
3. The gravamen of the offence charged under s 86(1)(b) is the unlawful detaining of a person. As Howie J noted in R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 at [32], there are a number of factors that can be relevant in making an assessment of the seriousness of an offence under s 86. These had been noted by the Judge at first instance in Newell, Freeman DCJ, as including the period of the detention, the circumstances of the detention, the person being detained and the purpose of the detention. Howie J pointed out, however, that the nature of the advantage which an offender seeks to obtain is not conclusive as to the seriousness of the offence.
4. The circumstance that the offence took place in a domestic context, as opposed to the detention of a stranger does not lessen its gravity: R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302.
5. The present offending took place despite the existence of an apprehended violence order. It took place in the home of the victim and involved a degree of physical force. The victim was detained for about 10 minutes in the laundry before being allowed to leave. The offender ignored the distress indicated by the victim when she told him she could not breathe as she was claustrophobic in a confined space. The offence was aggravated by the circumstances including the actual and threatened use of violence, the fact that the offences were committed in the victim's home and the circumstance that he was on conditional liberty at the time, namely parole.
6. In the Crown's submission the circumstances of the offending are described as "objectively very serious". In the defence submission, the objective seriousness falls below the mid-range for offences contrary to s 86(1).
7. A contrast and comparison with numerous cases charged pursuant to s 86 leads me to a conclusion that the objective seriousness does fall below the mid-range for such offences.
8. Such a determination is not to be understood as disagreement with the submission by the Crown that the circumstances surrounding the offending were objectively very serious. Undoubtedly they were. The repetitive nature of the offending against Ms Bolt by this offender is not something which should be ignored. However, an assessment of objective seriousness is an endeavour to place within a perceived range of objective seriousness the particular offence when compared with other similar offending (R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256).
9. The second substantive charge of intimidation occurred immediately following the victim's detention in the laundry. The intimidation was essentially a continuation of a course of conduct following on from the words exchanged and the circumstance of the detention in the laundry.
10. After moving to the kitchen, the offender put two kitchen knives to his own throat and implicitly threatened to harm himself. After being asked to "not do that cause you're freaking me out", the offender put his hands on his hips and told his former partner: "keep on going and I'll fucking get you cunt." He repeatedly swore at the victim and was acting in an unpredictable manner, variously becoming enraged and then calming down.
11. Clearly this offending was also in the home of the victim, and similarly was committed while he was on conditional liberty. The children who were aged 10 and 12 at the time were at home and in the vicinity.
12. The Agreed Facts indicate that the incident lasted half an hour in total. It is unclear whether that refers to the totality of the incident at the home or whether it relates to the period of the intimidation. Nothing particularly turns on the precise length of time of the intimidation other than it was not something that was brief in the sense of being fleeting or a short number of minutes.
13. The intimidation implicitly involved the potential use of knives which, at least at one stage, were in the hands of the offender.
14. All of these surrounding circumstances are relevant factors in placing this act of intimidation at an appropriate place in a range of such types of offending. Undoubtedly, the victim was scared, and the ongoing intimidation only ended as a consequence of the victim's father knocking on the door of the residence. The defence submission is that the objective seriousness falls just below the mid-range for offending of this type. I agree.

SUBJECTIVE FACTORS

1. The subjective circumstances and background of the offender were provided to the Court by various means. He provided a handwritten letter of apology which was tendered. He also gave evidence on oath in the proceedings. Two medico-legal reports were provided.
2. The first was a psychiatric report dated 3 November 2020 which had been prepared for use in civil proceedings for damages arising from the offender having been subjected to sexual abuse while detained at Juvenile Justice Centres at Reiby and Mt Penang.
3. The second report was a psychological assessment by Dr Dereck Gilligan prepared for the present proceedings.
4. In the offender's letter of apology, he expresses considerable regret for what he did to Aleasha Bolt and the hurt and pain that he described having put her through. He described having tried to enrol into as many domestic violence courses as were offered by the correctional institutions. He said that he wanted to know and gain a better outlook on how victims feel from domestic violence and what he could do to change the way that he acts in the future. He made reference to the sexual abuse that he had received while in Juvenile Justice and indicated that he would like to use some of the compensation payment that he had received to help women who are seeking help and shelter in getting away from domestic violence.
5. He described his sister as being one of his support people who was in the process of making an online site for victims of domestic violence. I should note in passing that the Court did not receive any material from his sister.
6. He described in the handwritten correspondence that his sons are now teenagers and hence old enough to start seeing things differently. He said he did not want his sons to see their father as a man who put their mother through domestic violence.
7. In his letter to the Court, he said that he told his lawyers when he was first charged that he wanted to plead guilty, but he wanted to dispute some of the facts.
8. His letter goes on to express to Aleasha that he is "very, very sorry for all the emotional and physical hurt and pain I have caused her." He expresses similar apologies to his two sons for not being able to be there for them.
9. He also indicates in that letter that he had a job that he can go to in the mines at Muswellbrook. He said he wanted to demonstrate to Aleasha and to his sons that he could become a changed man. His letter adds "even though I won't be around them anymore." He indicates that he will be a two and a half hour drive away from Aleasha and the boys.
10. He indicated that he has a five-year plan for working and seeking all the advice he can on domestic violence and helping others who need help. He describes how undertaking the domestic violence courses and especially the domestic violence videos that have been made available to him have led to an understanding of that there is no excuse for any type of domestic violence, and he has now seen, throughout the courses, what happens from the other person's point of view.
11. When called to give evidence on oath in the sentence hearing, the offender read the letter aloud and in full.
12. He also indicated that having had effectively no employment until he was about 40 years of age, he took employment in 2021 in what was his first extensive full-time job. He said that at that time he did not want to come back to gaol, and he was trying to better himself. He had been on opiate treatment and receiving Buvidal injections. These are injections which contain buprenorphine.
13. He was taken through the detail of his upbringing and childhood as recounted in the report by Dr Gilligan. He gave evidence that he had told Dr Gilligan the truth about these matters.
14. He had been born on 19 July 1981 in Taree. He was the youngest of five children and had three older sisters and an older brother. His father was Aboriginal from the Biripi mob and his mother was Anglo-Australian.
15. He was raised on the Aboriginal Mission in Purfleet near Taree and described a difficult childhood. Both of his parents consumed large quantities of alcohol and when intoxicated his father would become violent towards his mother. The offender himself was routinely "flogged" by his father, approximately three times a week from the age of 3 or 4. He said, however, that he was not hit with a closed fist until he was approximately 6.
16. His parents would often drink together with his aunties and uncles on the Mission. He described having been hit with jug cords and timber batons. He described an incident where his father broke a guitar over his head when he was about 6 years of age. His mother was apparently ill-equipped to intervene. She had her own experiences of inter-generational trauma having apparently been made a ward of the State herself and having spent periods of her childhood in an institution.
17. Mr Paulson reported being taken by his father at the age of 12 to visit his older brother who was in gaol.
18. His father left him in Redfern with a woman he did not know and returned to the Mission without him. The offender subsequently lived on the streets in Redfern for a period of about 18 months. He became involved in substance abuse and juvenile offending, predominantly stealing, in order to survive.
19. He subsequently started going into juvenile detention. The offender described having hated primary school. He said that his relationships with teachers were strained and that the teachers singled out Aboriginal students who were treated as subordinate to the white children. He was expelled for fighting after a few months in year 7.
20. The offender reported having had his first sexual experience when he was 12 years old after being left with the woman in Redfern by his father. The offender started using cannabis at a young age and went into a Juvenile Justice Centre at the age of 14 after stealing a motor vehicle.
21. At the age of 15 he was groomed by a female worker who was an adult at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre and he had a number of sexual interactions with her. He was later sent to Mt Penang where he was the victim of a physical assault perpetrated by a male worker who the offender described as a racist. He was conveyed to Gosford Hospital as a consequence of that assault.
22. He developed a significant opiate dependency by the age of 16. He funded his addiction through the proceeds of crime including break and enters and armed robbery, as well as dealing in heroin. He acquired Hepatitis C. He abused other drugs including diazepam and, in his words, "dabbled" with 'ice' or crystal methamphetamine. On occasion whilst in prison he has subsequently abused contraband buprenorphine.
23. In the medico-legal psychiatric report prepared for the civil proceedings, Associate Professor Michael Robertson apportioned around 20% of the psychiatric state of the offender to the described problems and difficulties in his early environment, "with the most significant contributing causal factor being the sexual abuse he endured at Reiby and to a lesser extent, the physical abuse at Mt Penang."
24. The consultant psychiatrist was of the opinion that the offender was suffering from chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and a co-morbid Substance Abuse Disorder.
25. The psychological assessment prepared by Dr Gilligan went into some detail regarding the nature of the relationship between the offender and Ms Bolt. The relationship was described as "on-and-off" from the age of about 25. She also had had formative years which had been marked by adversity and trauma which had a significant influence on her mental wellbeing.
26. The psychologist expressed the view that paradoxically, their respective challenging backdrops had served as a catalyst for forging a profound connection between them at various junctures in their relationship. Ms Bolt did not, however, suffer with substance dependence problems and had been able to maintain employment.
27. The offender had struggled with parenting responsibilities, and they had separated on multiple occasions. However, they had frequently reconciled in circumstances described by the offender as their profound love, shared history of facing adversity together and mutual emotional support. The reconciliations were also driven by virtue of having had children together.
28. The offender described a sense of persistent haranguing and criticism from Ms Bolt with respect to his adapting to the demands of family life and the responsibilities of parenting. He had subsequently withdrawn and returned to his history of drug abuse.
29. The offender described to the psychologist his realisation that ending the relationship with Ms Bolt is necessary. He acknowledged the difficulty of this decision but expressed a determination to move on and avoid perpetuating the same pattern.
30. He expressed a hope for potential future access to his children.
31. The psychologist thought that the offender had cognitive limitations, but that despite those limitations, a degree of insight into his offending appeared to be developing. Dr Gilligan added: "although he has a way to go."
32. The psychologist, by reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), came to a similar provisional diagnosis as had been expressed by the psychiatrist, Associate Professor Robertson. The psychologist thought that the corrections-based programs were of a didactic nature and that the offender would benefit from an extended community-based sentence. He thought an intensive level of supervision from Probation and Parole, perhaps incorporating an Intensive Correction Order, together with consideration of the use of an ankle bracelet, would be useful.

CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS

1. It is appropriate to observe at this point in the narrative that the offender's criminal antecedents reflect, in terms, the description of his past history provided to the psychologist and to the psychiatrist.
2. He had multiple appearances in the Taree Children's Court during his teenage years. His offending embraced multiple different offences including stealing, and the customary traffic offences of driving stolen cars without a licence and unregistered vehicles.
3. He went into an adult gaol at 19 years of age for an armed robbery in company. He was released to parole after 12 months and subsequently went back into custody some months before his 21st birthday. He was sentenced for a number of different robberies carried out in company and spent approximately five and a half years incarcerated before again being released to parole in October 2007. He was then 26.
4. In February 2008, his parole was revoked, and he served the balance of parole until June 2008.
5. He was again incarcerated in February 2009 for a period of months.
6. His first extended period in the community was for a period of approximately 4 years between 2009 and 2013 when he was between approximately 27 and 31 years of age. During that time, he commenced the relationship with Ms Bolt.
7. During that time, he was dealt with for numerous summary matters, none of which resulted in a term of imprisonment.
8. In 2016, he was imprisoned for using a carriage service to menace or harass. An ADVO was put in place in 2016 for the protection of Aleasha Bolt. Two the best of my understanding, all that was the first ADVO.
9. In January 2017, the offender assaulted Aleasha Bolt by grabbing and squeezing her face with such force that it caused an immediate and visible injury to her right lip. This assault was in contravention of the apprehended violence order which had been imposed for her protection in August 2016. It is unclear whether that ADVO had been put in place as a consequence of the menace and use of a carriage service offence which is on his record.
10. In February 2017, the Local Court at Taree imposed a 10-month prison sentence which was wholly suspended pursuant to the then s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. At the time of that assault, the offender and Ms Bolt had been in their on-and-off relationship for about 8 years. The provisional domestic violence order was made final in June 2017.
11. However, the following month, on 8 July 2017, the offender attended the victim's home in Forster in contravention of the ADVO. An argument ensued during which the offender assaulted Ms Bolt. The victim fell over and hit the left side of her head on a nearby brick wall. She screamed out in pain and the offender ran away from the location. He told her: "If I see the fucking cops come, I'll come back and smash the house up." Following his breach of the existing ADVO, Police obtained a warrant for his arrest. He remained at large.
12. On 9 August 2017, he again attended at the home of Ms Bolt and his two sons, again in breach of the ADVO. He entered the house at approximately 9:30 pm and stayed for about an hour. In due course, he struck Ms Bolt a number of times around her head and neck. She suffered swelling and bruising to her right eye and had broken blood vessels in her right eye. She had a lump on her head and swelling and bruising to the left side of her face and cuts to the inside of her mouth.
13. The offender left the premises before Police were called and attended.
14. He was subsequently arrested and went back into custody in October 2017. He remained in custody with the domestic violence matters still outstanding until released to bail on 20 March 2018.
15. He was back in custody for a month between June and July 2018, but the criminal history does not readily disclose the reason for that short period in custody.
16. In January 2019, he was arrested and charged with an aggravated robbery and the inflicting of actual bodily harm.
17. In March 2019, the outstanding domestic violence matters were eventually dealt with in Forster Local Court.
18. With respect to the July 2017 contravention and common assault, he was imprisoned for 11 months to date from 27 May 2018.
19. With respect to the August 2017 contravention of the ADVO and common assault at that time, he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, also to commence from 27 May 2018. A non-parole period of 12 months was imposed, backdated to 27 May 2018 and to conclude in May 2019.
20. I make the simple observation in passing that he was not in custody on those dates other than the one month between 29 June 2018 and being granted bail on 26 July 2018 and then again after 30 January 2019, following his arrest for other matters. Just how the Local Court passed a sentence of imprisonment which would be backdated to cover periods within the sentence when he was not in custody is not within my immediate comprehension (notwithstanding the discretion to commence a backdated sentence on a date when an offender was not actually in custody: see R v Newman, R v Simpson [2004] NSWCCA 102).
21. In 2019, having been arrested in January, he was ultimately sentenced in October 2019 at Port Macquarie District Court to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, commencing on 29 January 2019, for the aggravated robbery. He was then released on parole after completing the non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, on 28 October 2020.
22. In March 2021, the offender yet again went to the home of Ms Bolt. The offender had one of the boys in a motor vehicle directly outside the residence. His presence outside the house was a breach of the ADVO. Ms Bolt went to the vehicle and the offender yelled at her. She saw that their son had new clothes on, and she leant into the car to assist their child out.
23. The Agreed Facts do not indicate which of the boys was in the car, although they were each respectively 10 and 11 at the time. The offender raised his right fist but did not strike Ms Bolt.
24. After the offender left the premises, the victim made a complaint to Police. The offender was arrested on 7 March 2021, and was initially bail refused. He was granted bail some two days later.
25. At the time of his arrest, he told Police that Ms Bolt had been messaging him on a regular basis. Police examined his phone and confirmed there were a large number of text messages to the offender from Ms Bolt.
26. That material was the subject of a future Court Attendance Notice. The offender then failed to appear at Taree Local Court and was convicted in his absence and a warrant issued for his arrest. He was, of course, on parole.
27. In November 2021, Taree Community Corrections prepared a Breach of Parole Report. This
28. The offender had been released to parole with respect to the aggravated robbery on 28 October 2020 and his period on parole was not due to conclude until October 2022. He had failed to attend a scheduled appointment with his parole officer on 20 October 2021, although Community Corrections last had contact with him a week earlier, on 13 October 2021.
29. He was described as having displayed a sporadic response to supervision and had often failed to report. At times he had displayed a hostile attitude towards staff.
30. He had been recommended for anger management and counselling in April 2021, but that program had been suspended due to COVID restrictions. A Breach of Parole Report had earlier been submitted in March 2021, following his arrest on 7 March.
31. The more recent notification to Community Corrections by Police intelligence was that the offender was wanted by Police for the breaches of the ADVO, breach of bail, an allegation of strangulation, common assault and intimidation of Ms Bolt.
32. Community Corrections expressed an inability to mitigate any potential risks and given that there was a second incident of violence-related offending, it was recommended that the parole order be revoked.
33. On 8 December 2021, parole was revoked. It was treated as having been revoked on 31 October 2021.
34. Notwithstanding the outstanding warrant with respect to the March 2021 common assault and contravention of the ADVO and a warrant which would have been issued following the revocation order, the offender remained at large.
35. On 26 February 2022, he was arrested with respect to the matters presently before this Court.
36. He thereafter served the balance of parole.
37. Pursuant to the provisions of s 164A(3) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), the term of the sentence which he was serving, and hence the balance of parole, was extended by the number of days he was at large after the revocation order took effect. This meant that he served the balance of parole until 22 February 2023.
38. In July 2022, while he was in custody, bail refused, and serving the balance of parole, the outstanding matters relating to the breach of the ADVO and the common assault in March 2021, and his breach of bail following his failure to appear, were dealt with in Newcastle Local Court.
39. The offender was sentenced at that time to an aggregate sentence of 9 months imprisonment on each of the matters, such sentence to commence on 23 October 2022 and conclude on 23 July 2023. An aggregate non-parole period of 6 months was imposed, concluding on 22 April 2023.
40. However, the commencement date of that sentence was altered by the Local Court Magistrate when the matter was brought back before Newcastle Local Court on 21 October 2022. The commencement date of the sentence was adjusted to 9 months aggregate commencing on 27 August 2022 and expiring on 26 May 2023. The aggregate non-parole period of 6 months was to expire on 26 February 2023. As will be clear, that non-parole period ran effectively, concurrently with the balance of parole that was also being served.
41. Whether or not the suggested explanation for this adjustment to the start date of the sentence was a correct interpretation of s 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or not, does not require any detailed consideration in this Court.
42. The relevant nett effect of the additional sentence during the period in which the offender was bail refused on the present matters and that he also was concurrently serving the balance of parole, is a matter which will need some careful consideration relating to the principle of totality when the sentence is imposed for the present matters.
43. There is of course a discretion, see Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58. In the interests of clarity, the offender was serving the balance of parole between 26 February 2022 and 27 August 2022.
44. Between that date in August 2022 until 22 February 2023, whilst bail refused on the present matters, and serving the balance of parole, he was also serving the balance of parole and effectively the 6-month non-parole period of the sentence imposed in the Local Court in October 2022.
45. Between February 2023 and 26 May 2023, he was serving the remainder of the head sentence imposed by the Local Court Magistrate, coincident with the refusal of bail on the current matters.
46. I should also note it is self-evident that the present matters relating to 31 October 2021 were each committed whilst on parole.

REHABILITATION AND REMORSE

1. As indicated earlier in these Remarks, the offender has expressed remorse with respect to the offence and, in particular, to the damage and harm he has done to the victim and, by virtue of his enforced absences, to his two sons. As indicated earlier, this remorse has been expressed through the medium of the psychologist's report, his letter of apology to the Court and in his sworn testimony. I accept that his evinced remorse is genuine.
2. I harbour a slight reservation, however, which flows into the question of rehabilitation based upon his past history.
3. The Crown Sentence Summary Bundle includes the facts sheets from the Local Court with respect to the earlier assaults and contraventions of apprehended violence orders in January 2017, and the later offending in July 2017, August 2017 and March 2021.
4. While relapsing into drug use is the obvious and immediate explanation for the repetitive nature of his offending with respect to his former partner, I did observe with some level of concern that the hand written notes by the presiding magistrate on the facts sheet which was tendered relating to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the contravention of the apprehended violence order in January 2017, includes notations indicating that an apology was proffered to the Court, the offender had expressed concern for the victim and the children, and that upon his release he would be in touch with a rehabilitation service.
5. The offender's prospects for rehabilitation must, of necessity, be guarded in circumstances where he has repeatedly ignored the prohibitions and restrictions which have been put in place by successive apprehended violence orders.
6. It should also be observed that as recently as September 2023, he was actively seeking to influence Ms Bolt to either not give evidence or to give false evidence or to seek to vary her statements in order that he might procure an acquittal and release at an earlier date.
7. It is to be recognised that his attendance at the Remand Addictions Program whilst in custody on a very regular basis between April 2023 and June 2023 is demonstrative of a commitment to breaking the cycle of reoffending which has patently been linked with his addiction to prohibited drugs.
8. It is also to be recognised that he has regularly attended the Domestic Violence Program which was available to him. I accept his evidence that the effect, particularly of the videos which he was able to access in the course of the Domestic Violence Program, may now have given him a greater insight into the effect upon his victim of the domestic violence which he has repeatedly perpetrated.
9. One must, however, temper the recognition of those achievements and the optimism which they engender, with a degree of reservation which will only be removed when his future performance in society and, with respect particularly to his former partner and children, is demonstrated in performance of those evinced intentions.
10. I should also recognise the tender of a Statement of Attainment issued by NSW TAFE with respect to the offender having completed, during his period of incarceration, accredited units in the use of basic drawing technique, developing an understanding of his Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity, and developing painting skills.
11. Whilst not being provided with any examples of the execution of such skills, there are references to his utilisation and involvement in Aboriginal painting as a consequence of him learning such skills.

BUGMY CONSIDERATIONS

1. The subjective background of this offender reflects the very type of deprivation in a child's upbringing which underpins the principles expressed in R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 and Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387, and I also make reference to the observations of Simpson AJA in R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2. In the present matter, consideration of these principles must be taken into account in an assessment of the moral culpability of the offender.

JIRS STATISTICS AND COMPARATIVE CASES

1. There can be little doubt, particularly with respect to offences under s 86(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 that the very wide range of criminal offending contemplated within the various provisions of s 86 from what is described as the basic offence of detaining a person carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years up to the specially aggravated offence committed in company and with the infliction of actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum of 25 years, needs to be borne in mind. Given the wide range of conduct embraced by this section, the bare JIRS statistics are of little assistance.
2. Some indication of the approach taken in other cases however, can be obtained by seeking the individual crimes identified, often in the context of aggregate sentences imposed either at first instance or on appeal.
3. With respect to the offence of detaining for advantage, I have had regard to the remarks of Johnson J and the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal with respect to an aggravated kidnapping in R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130.
4. I have also had regard to the earlier remarks of Johnson J in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 with which Hunt AJA and Latham J agreed. I recognise that the factual circumstances in those cases was objectively more serious than the present matter. However, I also note that in Hamid, Johnson J said at [86]: "In sentencing a domestic violence offender, and in particular a repeat domestic violence offender, specific and general deterrence are important factors, together with the requirement of powerful denunciation by the community of such conduct and the need for protection of the community. Recognition of the harm done to the victim and the community as a result of crimes of domestic violence is important."
5. Amongst the various charges considered on the Crown appeal in R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128, there was a count of detaining for advantage included in that matter which, again, clearly was more objectively serious than the present matter.
6. Conversely, the factual circumstances before Grant DCJ in R v Rush [2022] NSWDC 107 were less objectively serious and resulted in a non-custodial sentence.
7. With respect to the second most serious substantive offence by reference to the maximum penalty of 14 years, offences involving an act done with intent to influence a witness intending to procure an acquittal were dealt with in Black v R [2008] NSWCCA 337.
8. In that matter, his Honour Judge Conlon SC sentenced an offender who was 19 when he was arrested and imprisoned for an offence of aggravated carjacking. Relevantly, after being imprisoned, the offender wrote a letter which he signed personally and sent in an envelope with his prison identification number on the rear, in which he warned a potential witness that he should "watch his back". The maximum penalty at the time was 7 years. Judge Conlon imposed a head sentence of 5 years with a 3-year non-parole period.
9. The Court of Criminal Appeal per McClellan CJ at CL, Simpson and Latham JJ agreeing, recognised at [18] that: "The offence was serious and does, as the sentencing judge confirmed, strike at the heart of the criminal justice system. It was not the most serious offence or even a most serious offence of its type."
10. The Court recognised that the JIRS statistics at that time for similar offending revealed that approximately half of the 17 cases recorded had received prison sentences while the other half had been dealt with by way of bond, community service, suspended sentence or periodic detention. The latter two options, of course, no longer being available. The Appellant in that matter had received the most significant sentence of any offender charged pursuant to the section.
11. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the appeal against severity and resentenced the offender to 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months with respect to his attempt to influence the witness.
12. In R v Burton, to which I have referred earlier, one of the separate offences which had been dealt with by Judge Murrell SC (as her Honour then was) at first instance, was similar to the present matter in its factual circumstances.
13. The offender had made a series of telephone calls to the domestic violence victim in which he had encouraged her to either withdraw her statement or to give different evidence.
14. Similar to the present case, in which Mr Paulson suggested the worst that could happen would be a fine, Mr Burton told the victim in his telephone calls that the worst that would happen was that she would get a good behaviour bond. The offences of domestic violence in that matter had occurred while the offender was also subject to parole.
15. Her Honour, Judge Murrell SC, had imposed a s 9 bond with respect to the attempt to influence the witness in those telephone calls. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld a Crown appeal and imposed a sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. That sentence should be viewed, however, against the background circumstances of the other six offences which were the subject of the sentencing in that matter.
16. I have also had recourse to Evans v R [2017] NSWCCA 281. That was an appeal against the severity of sentences imposed by Judge McLennan SC in the District Court at Tamworth in 2017. In the course of passing an aggregate sentence of 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months with respect to a number of offences including assaults, intentionally destroying property, indecent assault, contravention of an apprehended domestic violence order and doing an act with intent to influence a witness under s 323A, Judge McLennan SC had given an indicative sentence for the doing of an act with intent to influence of 3 years and 2 months, which contributed to the aggregate sentence which had been imposed.
17. In the circumstances of that particular matter, there had similarly been text messages sent over the mobile phone service to the victim in an attempt to have her withdraw the charges which had been brought against him. Those messages included him asking if she was going to drop the charges; saying that he did not want to go to gaol; that he knew that he would be doing serious time; that he wanted her to drop the charges and the sooner the better; asking her had she thought about the charges and responses in relation to the cost of paying a solicitor and a barrister; and asking her whether she should go to the particular premises identified and live the life that she wanted to.
18. The exhortations in that matter might be viewed as less influential than the matter involving Mr Paulson but that is a question of degree. At all events, the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the appeal against severity, came to a view that the indicative sentence with respect to the charge under s 323A was manifestly excessive and had influenced the outcome in the aggregate sentence, which they also determined was manifestly excessive.
19. In the circumstances of that particular case, the Court of Criminal Appeal in the leading judgment of Adamson J, with whom Hoeben CJ at CL and Davies J agreed, reduced the indicative sentence for the influencing offence to a period of 12 months. The aggregate sentence was substantially reduced.
20. The last matter to which I have had some recourse was the District Court judgment of Hunt DCJ in R v Beaver (2019) NSWDC 215 in which the particular circumstances of the attempt to influence a witness in that matter resulted in an indicative sentence of three years. The act with intent to influence a witness to procure an acquittal in that particular matter resulted in an indicative sentence of 3 years after a discount of 25%.

CONSIDERATION

1. All of the offending before this Court relates to the ongoing and repeated incidents of domestic violence towards, and related offences with respect to, the former partner of the offender.
2. Whilst the actions and charged conduct of Mr Paulson do not reflect the tragic outcome of other cases which has led to the recent and current well-publicised political and social commentary, the significance of the protection of vulnerable domestic partners or former partners is at the heart of the principles underlying the legislation which gives rise to the particular offences before this Court in the present matter.
3. The detailed commentary and review of principles with respect to sentencing for domestic violence offences which was set out in the judgment of Johnson J in Hamid from [65] bear re-reading and repetition.
4. As long ago as the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Glen (Unreported 19 December 1994, BC 9403423), Simpson J stressed the importance of general deterrence in cases of domestic violence. Her Honour stated that the victims of domestic violence would "receive the full protection of the law, insofar as the Courts are able to afford it to them."
5. Since Glen, the Court of Criminal Appeal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of general deterrence in domestic violence cases.
6. Clearly, in the circumstances of repeated offending in the face of successive apprehended violence orders, specific deterrence must also receive signal importance.
7. I have taken cognisance of the Bugmy factors to which I have referred earlier. I take into account my earlier expressed findings with respect to the offender's expressions of remorse and the concerns and reservation to which I have made reference with respect to his prospects of rehabilitation.
8. While I do not doubt his evinced intentions in this regard, as might be described colloquially, the proof will be in the pudding.
9. A slightly more difficult consideration than is normally the case arises with respect to the revocation of parole which he was required to serve whilst he was bail refused in the present matters.
10. In the exercise of discretion, I would customarily apportion a figure of approximately 50% of the time served to the revocation of parole, in circumstances where the revocation was brought about by virtue of the index offending for which he appears on sentence before me.
11. However, there are two countervailing circumstances in the present matter. The first is that the revocation of parole had nothing to do with the current offences. The revocation related to his non-compliance with the conditions of his parole and to the subsequent offending by way of contravention of the earlier domestic violence orders. There was a warrant for his arrest and offences of violence which were outstanding in addition to his failure to attend for treatment with Community Health.
12. The second factor which differs from the norm is that he was sentenced in the Local Court to a term of imprisonment of 9 months with a 6-month non-parole period to which I referred earlier, during his service of the period of the balance of parole. That sentence was operative, as I have already indicated, at least as to the non-parole period, coincidental with the balance of parole period. He thereafter served the balance of that sentence for a period of 3 months.
13. The public justice offence under s 323 is also a matter in which general deterrence plays a significant role. I do not repeat what I have referred to in the earlier examination of comparative sentences, but those factors are important to bear in mind.
14. I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
15. In all of the circumstances relating to the commencement of an appropriate time, I have determined that a period of 9 months of the period in custody should be attributed to these other matters solely. Accordingly, the aggregate sentence which I will pass will commence on 26 November 2022.
16. The indicative sentences have each taken into account the 5% discount referable to the first three offences chronologically and the 25% applicable discount to the two subsequent offences. With respect to each of the contraventions of apprehended violence orders which are brought before this Court pursuant to s 166, I will indicate the sentence which would have been passed and they will contribute to the aggregate sentence.
17. With respect to Count 3, the detaining for advantage, the indicative sentence after the 5% discount will be 14 months.
18. With respect to Count 1, the act of intimidation, the indicative sentence after the 5% discount will be 9 months. Clearly the 5% has been rounded down. Sequence 4, contravene ADVO, similarly allowing a 5% discount rounded, will be 14 months.
19. With respect to sequence 4, the contravention of the apprehended domestic violence order, similarly allowing a 5% discount rounded, will be a period of 14 months.
20. With respect to sequence 3, an act intending to influence a witness, after a discount of 25%, the indicative sentence will be 2 years and 3 months.
21. The contravention of the apprehended domestic violence order pursuant to s 166 relating to the making of the telephone calls, after a 25% discount, will be an indicative sentence of 6 months.
22. There will be an aggregate head sentence of 3 years and 6 months. There will be a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months.
23. The sentence and non-parole period will commence on 26 November 2022. He will be eligible for release on 25 February 2025. The additional term of 1 year and 3 months will expire on 25 May 2026.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 August 2024