HIS HONOUR: SR ("the offender") stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that on Saturday 15 January 2022 at a residential unit in Botany Road, Botany, he did cause grievous bodily harm to JL, and was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to JL ("the victim").
That is an offence contrary to s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. Parliament has also imposed a standard non-parole period of four years imprisonment, a standard non-parole period would be applicable if the offender had pleaded not guilty, was convicted, and the offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness.
[2]
Facts
At the time of the offence, the offender was 51 years old. He was married to SJ, who is the mother of the victim. At the time, JL was 14 years old. Currently, the victim is 15 years old and the offender is 52 years old.
In essence, at the time of the offence, the offender was the stepfather of the victim. The offender, the victim, and the victim's mother were living together in a residential unit in Botany Road, Botany. On Saturday 15 January 2022, the offender and SJ left the residence in order to go to lunch to celebrate SJ's birthday. The luncheon was at a restaurant in Maroubra. They arrived there at about 1.30pm, and met members of SJ's extended family. SJ and the offender remained at the restaurant for about two and a half hours, during which time the offender consumed about five beers. The agreed facts do not tell me whether they were middies or schooners of beer or, for example, small bottles of beer.
When the luncheon was concluded, the offender, SJ, and her extended family attended a licensed sports and community club at Maroubra, arriving there at about 4.30pm. They stayed for about three hours, leaving at approximately 7.30pm. It can be seen therefore that the offender was taking alcohol between 1.30pm and 7.30pm on the afternoon of 15 January 2022.
SJ described herself as "slightly intoxicated", and she described the offender as being "moderately intoxicated". At about 8pm, SJ and the offender returned to their residence. The victim was in his bedroom. He came out into the loungeroom and asked his mother whether she had brought dinner home for him. SJ told him that she had not done so, and the victim returned to his bedroom and slammed the door behind him. SJ then began to make dinner for the victim.
Sometime later, the victim returned to the kitchen to fill up his water bottle, and that caused both the offender, the victim, and SJ, to be in the kitchen. The agreed facts continue thus:
"The offender said to him 'You're lazy', and 'You always stay in your room,' and that 'You never do anything and make your mum do everything'. The victim told the offender to 'Shut up.' The offender said to the victim 'Say it to my face.' The victim stuck his middle finger up at the offender and walked back to his bedroom."
The offender then followed the victim into his bedroom. The victim was sitting on his bed. The offender swore and yelled at the victim. The victim then stood up to confront the offender. The offender then pushed the victim down onto his bed, with both hands applied to the victim's chest. He then began hitting the victim in the head. The offender hit the victim to each side of the head with closed fists approximately ten to 20 times. The victim described the hits as rapid punches that continued for between 30 and 40 seconds.
While the offender was hitting the victim, the victim was attempting to cover his face. He yelled "stop" and "it hurts", and screamed without uttering any words. The victim described himself as feeling "trapped" because the offender was leaning over him such that the victim felt that he could not move. The victim then put himself into a foetal position and tried to move his face away from the offender as the punches continued connecting with his face.
SJ had followed the offender into the victim's bedroom, and was behind the offender's right shoulder, attempting to pull him away from the victim. SJ yelled to the offender "Get off". The offender then stopped punching the victim and left the bedroom. The victim immediately complained to his mother about his eye. The victim and his mother then left the premises and the mother drove the victim to the Sydney Children's Hospital.
At the hospital, the victim was found to have a fracture of the right orbital floor socket. The fracture was so large that fatty tissue protruded through the fracture of the bone. On Monday 17 January 2022, the victim underwent surgery. A titanium plate was attached to the orbital socket in order to restrain the soft tissue protruding through the fracture.
The agreed facts contain this:
"The victim began to experience double vision and blurred vision in the immediate aftermath of the assault. The victim continues to experience vision difficulties, including a reduced range of vertical movement in his right eye and periods of double vision. The victim has regular ophthalmology appointments to assess his condition."
Unfortunately there is no report before me from either the Sydney Children's Hospital or the victim's treating ophthalmic surgeon. I do not know whether the victim will make a full recovery from the effects of the injury. Clearly the agreed facts refer to the victim's ongoing problems. The agreed facts were dated 15 June 2022. The victim has provided a victim impact statement that bears date 6 September 2022, that is, earlier this month. Again, the victim impact statement refers to ongoing ocular symptoms that suggest that there has been no substantive improvement since 15 June 2022.
[3]
The investigation
The victim participated in a Joint Investigation Response Team interview on 16 January 2022 in the early hours of the morning. The police then attended upon the residential unit at Botany and arrested the offender, thereafter conveying him to Mascot Police Station. The offender participated in an electronically recorded interview, during which he confirmed that he was the victim's stepfather and that the victim lived alternatively between his SJ's house, where he lived with the offender, and also the victim's father's house. The offender answered "no comment" in answer to questions concerning the assault.
The offender participated in a forensic procedure where photographs were taken of his hands. There were no visible injuries to his left hand, but there appeared to an abrasion and possible swelling to the third knuckle of his right hand. I note from the photograph that the offender appears to have been wearing a wedding band on his left ring finger.
[4]
The extent of the victim's injuries
The concerning matter is the extent of the victim's injury. In the victim impact statement, the victim says that he continues to have blurred vision and that he still has some numbness over half of his face. Since the assault, the victim moved in to stay with his father indefinitely, and the victim impact statement refers to there being an interruption in his relationship with his mother, which was persisting as at 6 September 2022. The victim not only moved house indefinitely, but he has also changed school, consequently missing seven weeks of school. He does not feel that he has been able yet to catch up with his schooling.
The victim impact statement records ongoing emotional symptoms. The victim said that it took him three weeks to complete his victim impact statement because he "breaks down" every time he had to think about the assault and its effect on him. Recollecting the event brings back memories which he finds distressing. He also reports having ongoing nightmares, being violent mental reconstructions of his being punched by the offender. He also expresses worries about the offender turning up at either his home or school, but there is nothing to suggest that those worries are founded in fact.
He exhibits a symptom of feeling scared if somebody moves their hand towards his face. He also refers to depression and the loss of his old friends because of the necessity to change schools.
The weight I give to the victim impact statement must be guarded. I have considered the decisions of R v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346, RP v R [2013] NSWCCA 192, and Muggleton v R [2015] NSWCCA 62. Unfortunately, there is no expert evidence to corroborate the complaints made by the victim in his statement, and there was no evidence about the prognosis for either the emotional symptoms or the ocular symptoms.
[5]
Aggravating factors
There are a number of aggravating factors. The first is that the offence occurred in the victim's own home. The second is that the offence was committed by the victim's stepfather, a person who stood In loco parentis to the victim, and as such the victim was under his authority. I also accept that the victim was vulnerable to an assault by reason of his age being only 14 years old.
The Crown has submitted that there is also the aggravating factor of there being "substantial emotional harm". Section 21A(2)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 is not limited to substantial emotional harm, but can also refer to substantial damage or substantial injury. The eye is an organ that is extremely delicate, extremely vulnerable, and extremely important in how we live and enjoy ourselves. Good eyesight enables one to read, to watch television, to enjoy a movie, to go travelling, to enjoy sights, to see those we love and respect, and it gives a wide area of future employment, especially in this digital age. Therefore, I accept that there is substantial injury inflicted in this case.
[6]
Objective seriousness
In the written submissions prepared by the solicitor with the carriage of the matter for the Crown, it was submitted that the offending was "within the low range of objective seriousness for offences of this type". Ms Menzies, who appeared today for the Crown, has submitted that the matter was not at the bottom of the range but was somewhere between the bottom of the range and the mid-range of objective seriousness. On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that the objective seriousness of the offence "could be categorised as low given that it was an unplanned, spontaneous assault which lasted a short time".
In my view this case is not at the bottom of the range. It is, I accept, below mid-range, but in the mid-range of the range between the bottom of the low-range and mid-range. That is because of the nature of the assault itself, which appears to have been a frenzied onset of punching to the head done by a man who was affected by alcohol.
Everything points to this assault being out of character and probably initiated by the offender's alcohol intake, because of disinhibition due to that alcohol intake. It has been submitted that the offender was trying to reprimand his step-son because of the perceived disrespect which the victim gave to SJ. However, the proximate cause of the conduct was because of what the offender perceived as being disrespect to himself. In his own statement to me, which is Exhibit 3, the offender said this:
"When we arrived home [JL] had started verbally abusing his mother because we hadn't brought his dinner home. I told him to pull his head in & don't talk to your mother like that, he then told me to "Shut up", I then said to him come here & say that, he then proceeded to walk into his room, as he was walking into his room he stuck up his middle finger & told me to "Fuck Off". This caused me to follow him into his room where he was standing on his bed, he had his hands up in a fist position, I pushed him & he pushed me back, it was at this moment that I hit him, he fell onto his bed & then his mother stepped in between us. I then walked back out into the lounge room, I was all over in 20 seconds. In reflection the possibly worst 20 seconds of my life. I am today still trying to process the events of that night."
One will note there are differences between that account and the agreed facts and, of course, I will proceed on the basis of the agreed facts. However, it is clear that the precipitant for the offender's following the victim into his bedroom was the perception by the offender of the disrespect shown by the victim to him.
[7]
The consumption of alcohol
In R v Sewell and Walsh (1981) 29 SASR 12, Zelling J, with whom Mitchell and Cox JJ agreed, said this:
"At the common law the taking of drink was an aggravation both in relation to mens rea and as to penalty. The motto of the common law was qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius. We have moved away from that concept as far as mens rea is concerned, but there are still many offences in which drink is an aggravation in relation to penalty. There are others in which it is not. For example, a person under the influence of liquor, who is otherwise of a blameless character, may do something which is quite out of character and the liquor may be both an explanation and a factor in mitigation, but in other cases it may swing the penalty towards deterrence. In crimes of violence one may have some hope of putting rational arguments to deter a sober would-be assailant. That chance is much diminished if the assailant is under the influence of drink or drugs. Certainly an assault by a person under such influence is more frightening to the average person. Bray C.J. said in Birch v. Fitzgerald:
'Nevertheless there are offences in which, as it seems to me, the deterrent purpose of punishment must take priority. When people act under the influence of liquor, passion, anger or the like so as to constitute themselves a physical danger or potential physical danger to other citizens it may well be that a sentence of imprisonment will be appropriate, even in the case of a first offender of good character, in order to impress on the community at large that such behaviour will not be tolerated.'
I entirely agree with respect with the observations of Bray C.J. in this matter. I think the Judge was entitled to take the fact these men were to some extent under the influence of alcohol and marijuana as being of importance in a crime of violence, but in any event the Judge only took those circumstances into account along with the boredom and the aimlessness to which he refers. They were in my opinion circumstances that the Judge was perfectly entitled to take into account."
Those dicta apply in this State.
In Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA 183 Button J with whom McClellan CJ at CL and Price J agreed said this:
"50. As for the role of alcohol, it is well established that the intoxication of an offender at the time of the commission of an offence can be taken into account by a sentencing court: see R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306. Whether intoxication is a matter of mitigation or aggravation will depend upon the facts of the particular case.
51. In R v Coleman, Hunt J (with whom Finlay and Allen JJ agreed) said at 327:
"The degree of deliberation shown by an offender is usually a matter to be taken into account; such intoxication would therefore be relevant in determining the degree of deliberation involved in the offender's breach of the law. In some circumstances, it may aggravate the crime because of the recklessness with which the offender became intoxicated; in other circumstances, it may mitigate the crime because the offender has by reason of that intoxication acted out of character. (I have not intended by those examples to limit the extent to which intoxication may be taken into account: see, generally, Sewell and Walsh (1981) 29 SASR 12 at 14-15; 5 A Crim R 204 at 207.) Where the reason for the offender's intoxication is a self-administered drug rather than alcohol, the cases suggest that that fact may well be more likely to aggravate than to mitigate."
52. In BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379, Johnson J (with whom Hodgson JA and Rothman J agreed on this aspect) said at [55]:
'Although the issue is excluded in this way at trial [referring to a statutory provision not calling for discussion in this judgment], the intoxication of an offender may be relevant on sentence: R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306 at 327; Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 at [52]-[55]. Certainly, there is nothing in the Crimes Act or the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, nor any common law principle, which would exclude intoxication being taken into account on sentence in assessing the moral culpability of a s 61I offender. Of course, how it may be taken into account will depend upon the circumstances of the case and the impact of intoxication upon the offender's degree of deliberation and whether it contributes to an offender acting out of character: R v Duncan [2004] NSWCCA 431 at [203]; Stanford v The Queen at [55]. Alcohol is not a licence to commit crime: R v Duncan at [203].'
A little later, at [79], his Honour said:
'The applicant's intoxication may serve to explain how his judgment was affected, to some extent, to act in this way. However, this is a not uncommon scenario for sexual assault offences and it can provide limited assistance only to an offender on sentence.'"
That the offender acted out of character, I accept. However, he acted out of character because he took too much alcohol. That was a voluntary act on his own part. His consumption of alcohol, which disinhibited him to the extent that he committed this offence, cannot be seen in any way as a mitigating factor. I do not, however, take it as an aggravating factor, because there is no evidence that the same had happened in the past. If the same had happened in the past, it would certainly be an aggravating factor.
[8]
The issue
It is common ground between the parties that the threshold in s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 has been crossed. The question for my determination is whether the offender is sentenced to full-time custody, or whether, as has been submitted on his behalf, he should be placed on an Intensive Corrections Order ("ICO").
[9]
Offender's antecedents
I turn now to the personal circumstances of the offender. He was 51 years old at the time of the offence, and is now 52 years old. He has a limited criminal record which shows no evidence of any earlier crime of violence. On or about 11 February 1990, at the age of 19, he committed a low range PCA offence for which he received a fine. and a disqualification from driving. On 8 April 1990 he was fined for an offensive language and resisting arrest. On 16 April 1994, at the age of 23, he was charged with possession of a prohibited drug, for which he was fined $120. On 28 January 2005, at the age of 34, he was found guilty of driving with the mid-range level of PCA for which he was fined and disqualified from driving for six months.
It is obvious that the two PCA offences were referrable to his ingestion of alcohol, and it is likely that the other two offences may have been in the same category. In any event, he has, over the last 17 years, not committed any criminal offence.
There are a large number of references attesting to the offender's character before me. Many have known the offender for 40 or 30 years. For example, Mr Gavin Sullivan, from Narrandera, has known the offender for over 40 years. They have spent time together in social and work situations. Mr Sullivan was heavily involved in the Narrandera Imperial Football Netball Club. He is a past president of that club and a life member. The football played by that club appears to be "Australian Rules" football. That is a sport in which the offender himself has been heavily involved. Mr Sullivan referred to the offender as an "exceptionally well-behaved and pleasant person". As to his involvement in football Mr Sullivan said this:
"His focus was always on the children having fun and playing to their potential. [SR] always had a calm and responsible attitude and enjoyed mentoring the young players. His dedication and professionalism with Narrandera Imperial Football Netball Club over a long period of time has been greatly appreciated."
Like many others, Mr Sullivan refers to this events as being "very out of character", but it is not at all clear from his reference whether he knew the extent of the assault upon the victim.
There is another reference from Mr Paul Habel of Mount Austin. He had worked for the "Australian Rules" football in Griffith, New South Wales. He referred to the offender as being an accomplished AFL player and coach. He went on to say this:
"[SR] was very respected by the players he coached, his co-coaches, and importantly the parents of the players in his control given his ability to communicate in a professional and positive manner.
He was also very well respected in his hometown of Narrandera as a solid citizen within the community when he lived there before moving away."
He too describes the offender's action as being "out of character", but it is not clear if he knew the extent of the assault.
There is a reference from Ms Susan Ruffles of Narrandera. Her reference contains this:
"In past years I have confidently and fully entrusted [SR] with the care of my son when he was a child and youth. [SR] was not only a reliable, caring and diligent coach, he also responsibly supervised my son at social events. Further to this [SR] provided caring and considered counsel and personal encouragement to my son during some times of upset and stress. He was always honest, up-front and sensible in his measured counsel and dealings with the boys he coached. He was well-respected and, from my observations and comments from others that I've heard, he got along very well with the range of adults (club colleagues and all parents/caregivers) that he worked and socialised alongside."
There is a reference from Ms Karen Hunt also of Narrandera. She is a justice of the peace and an early childhood teacher. She has known the offender for approximately 20 years. She categorised the behaviour of which she was told (the extent of which I do not know) as atypical, and states that she had never known the offender to react or respond in a manner of assaulting a young person.
There is also a reference from Mr Marc Geppert, the regional manager of the ACT and Regional New South Wales for "Australian Rules" football, who attests to his involvement with AFL and the good work he has done mentoring and shaping the development of young players.
There is another reference from a Justice of the Peace in Narrandera, Ms Rachael Hyde, who attests to the offender's good character. As far as she was concerned, she referred to whatever she was told about the assault as being a "temporary lapse in judgment".
[10]
Work and living arrangements
I do not know when the offender moved from Narrandera to Sydney, but I know that he was married to SJ for at least four years when the victim and the offender were cohabiting. It appears that the offender has been working for the last four years for Rema Tip Top Australia Pty Limited, being involved in the selling of automotive spare parts. There is reference from Ms Katharina Preuss, who is the General Manager of that company for who the offender has been working as a sales representative in the Sydney metropolitan area. As I understand it, the offender now holds a more responsible job in sales for that company throughout this State.
According to the Sentencing Assessment Report, the offender can work for his employer for up to six days per week, and earns a healthy fortnightly income together with commission.
Since his separation from Ms Jones, the offender has been living in rental accommodation in the Sutherland Shire. He has no contact with the victim, and there is an Apprehended Violence Order which protects the victim and prohibits the offender from returning to the matrimonial home.
[11]
Abstention
Much has been placed upon the fact that the offender has, since this event, been abstinent of alcohol. However, that is a term of his bail, bail which he has enjoyed since the day on which he was arrested.
[12]
Counselling
The offender has also voluntarily undertaken counselling, and there is in evidence a report from Dr Luke Vu, a consultant clinical psychologist, upon whom the offender has been attending since 9 March 2022 and who has been providing the offender with cognitive behavioural treatment. Dr Vu's report of 23 May 2022 says this:
"I believe that this treatment is suitable and effective for the reduction of his adjustment difficulties, anger management difficulties and problematic drinking episodes. [SR] has shown high levels of engagement, consistent attendance and high motivation to make progress towards his therapeutic goals and there is no indication throughout treatment to suggest that his offences were of a chronic pattern."
The former assertion is of course borne out by the offender's criminal record or perhaps I should say by his lack of a criminal record of crimes of violence. At the time, Dr Vu wrote in the report that the offender had attended upon him on six occasions. I have been told from the Bar table that the offender continues to consult with Dr Vu, but there is no up to date report from him.
[13]
Upcoming surgery
As this is relevant to another issue in the case, I am also provided with a report of Dr Anthony Leong, an orthopaedic surgeon who advises me that the offender is scheduled for surgery on Friday 7 October 2022. I understand that to be for a total hip replacement, owing to a hairline fracture of a femur.
Because of the offender's hip problem and the need to undergo surgery, Community Corrections have no suitable light duties available to be performed by the offender if a community service order is made.
[14]
Family
According to the Sentencing Assessment Report, the offender has adult children from former unions, and according to one of the references, he has a number of grandchildren, but I know nothing of the circumstances of his children and grandchildren, nor anything about his contact with them.
[15]
Consideration
In essence, the offender comes before the Court as, essentially, a man of prior good character who has contributed greatly to the community, at least when he was living in Narrandera, and one might think from what I have read that he grew up in that area of the Riverina.
Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 states there to be a number of purposes for which a court may impose a sentence, those purposes are these:
"(a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) to protect the community from the offender,
(d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) to denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community."
Often, emphasis is laid upon the circumstances of an offender on his rehabilitation, and on personal deterrence, and on preventing the commission of further offences of the same type. I am persuaded that, in the current case, there is little if any prospect of the offender committing another crime of violence; the risk of recidivism is low. That very point is made in the Sentencing Assessment Report which assesses a low risk of reoffending.
I am persuaded that, therefore, there is not great emphasis to be laid on personal deterrence, and that the protection of the community does not loom at all large. I am also persuaded the offender himself has taken steps to promote his own rehabilitation.
Again, I come back to the issue that, here, the substantive issue is whether the Court should impose a full-time custodial sentence or an ICO. In that regard, the Sentencing Assessment Report needs to be considered. Under the heading "supervision plan" the Report says this:
"Due to [SR]'s T1/Low risk of reoffending, if the Court makes a supervised order, Community Corrections will monitor him for any indicators of increased risk.
[SR] will be required to advise of any changes to his address or contact details, and any significant changes in his circumstances. Community Corrections will receive an automatic notification if he has contact with the NSW Police Force or enters a NSW Correctional Centre.
[SR] will not be required to participate in face-to-face reporting with a Community Corrections Officer. However, if an automatic notification or any other information indicates that his risk of re offending has increased, Community Corrections will review the case. This review may result in Community Corrections commencing fact-to-face reporting with [SR] or submitting a breach report."
In short, Community Corrections will only do something positive if the offender has an adverse interaction with the police or is incarcerated. The Report does not recommend any particular form of rehabilitation. Its recommended order conditions are these:
"If the court makes a supervised order, Community Corrections considers that the following conditions would assist to manage the identified risk factors:
Abstain from alcohol for the term of the order
Comply with mental health treatment as recommended by...Dr Vu."
There is no actual recommendation from Dr Vu or any other medical practitioner, and I do not know to what extent Dr Vu's cognitive behaviour therapy, assuming it to be ongoing, will be necessary to complete what Dr Vu can do to assist the offender.
Because of the offender's hip problem, he is not suitable to undertake community service work. In essence, an ICO would then involve the offender's abstaining from alcohol and continuing to see Dr Vu as Dr Vu recommends. The impact on the offender's life would be miniscule. True it is that if he, for example, were found to be drinking and driving, or otherwise found to have breached an alcohol abstention order, he might be called up for breach of the ICO, but that is highly problematic bearing in mind the fact that the offender drives for his living and has not had any drink driving offence since 2005, some 17 years ago.
The real question is whether an ICO would be adequate punishment for the offence committed by the offender, as s 3A(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 requires the offender must be adequately punished for his offence. The sentence to be passed must deter not only the offender, but also all other step-fathers from committing similar offences against their stepsons. The punishment to be imposed must make the offender accountable for his actions and denounce his conduct.
Here we have a 14 year old boy who was, to put it in blunt terms, bashed, which led to his sustaining a substantive injury to a very delicate area of his body, his face, affecting a very delicate organ, his eye. The effects of the injury appear to be ongoing.
I have reached the view that only a sentence of full-time imprisonment would be adequate for this case. An ICO in the circumstances would hardly, in my view, be appropriate.
Consistent with what I already said about the seriousness of the assault, I have reached the view that the starting point for this sentencing exercise is a theoretical sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, that must be reduced by 25% for the offender's early plea of guilty. That is accepted as the result of the operation of the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea scheme. That reduces the head sentence to one year and ten months.
Applying the statutory ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period, the non-parole period should be one year and four months. However, in this case I am prepared, bearing in mind all the circumstances, to find special circumstances. The offender is a man essentially of prior good character. At the age of 52, he will enter the custodial system. It is not pleasant. I have visited many gaols over the last 28 years, and I can assure anyone who reads what I say or hears what I say that gaol is not a pleasant place at all. The offender will find it particularly uncomfortable and the circumstances of that indicate that the non-parole period should be reduced.
I have reached the view that the appropriate non-parole period will be 12 months.
The offender has spent, according to the Crown sentence summary, one day in custody such that the sentence should commence 28 September 2022. The head sentence should end 27 July 2024.
[16]
Order
SR, on the charge that on 15 January 2022 at Botany Road, Botany, in this State you did cause grievous bodily harm to JL and were reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to JL, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 12 months, commencing 28 September 2022, and expiring 27 September 2023. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 10 months, to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring 27 July 2024. The total sentence is therefore 1 year and 10 months, comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I do find special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
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: 08 November 2022