AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 11 July 2011

R v Scott GOLDING

[2011] NSWDC 104

Assault & violence
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE RECKLESS WOUNDING PLEA OF GUILTY AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD GUARDED PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

Citation: R v Scott Golding [2011] NSWDC 104
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 July 2011
Judge: Cogswell SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 34-year-old man who worked on fishing boats in the Northern Territory, travelled to Sydney in January 2010 for a break. He spent the day drinking heavily with friends at a Surry Hills property, having already been heavily intoxicated on the flight from Darwin.

An altercation developed when a group of men appeared at the front gate seeking a confrontation. The offender retrieved a filleting knife he had brought from Darwin and ran outside wielding it. While attempting to stab one of the men in the group, he stabbed a 16-year-old girl who stepped between them, inflicting a deep wound that punctured her left lung, caused it to collapse, and required emergency surgery and intensive care treatment.

After the stabbing, the offender fled to Adelaide, then Perth, and then back to Darwin. Police arrested him there in February 2010. He pleaded guilty to reckless wounding at the earliest available opportunity, and asked the court to also take into account a concurrent charge of common assault arising from the same incident.

  • What sentence was appropriate for the offence of reckless wounding under s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of three years?
  • What weight should be given to the early guilty plea, the offender's prior criminal record, his background, his prospects of rehabilitation, and his intoxication at the time of the offence?
  • How should the additional charge of common assault (taken into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) affect the overall sentence?

Decision

Cogswell SC DCJ characterised the offence as falling in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. Although the offender claimed he retrieved the knife for protection rather than to escalate the conflict, the judge found this made little practical difference given the gravity of what followed. The victim's injuries were severe, requiring emergency surgery and intensive care.

The offender's early guilty plea was a significant mitigating factor. However, his prior record included adult custodial terms for violence-related offences between 1996 and 2006, and both the Probation and Parole Service and the court identified a persistent pattern of alcohol and drug-fuelled offending. The Probation and Parole Service assessed him as unlikely to benefit from supervision, given consistently unsatisfactory performance during previous periods of oversight.

On the question of rehabilitation, the court noted the forensic psychologist's opinion that the offender required ongoing psychological support and that his work as a fisherman was integral to his recovery. The court accepted, with some reservation, that he might benefit from drug and alcohol supervision this time. Overall, the court assessed his prospects of rehabilitation as guarded.

Having regard to all these factors, including the standard non-parole period of three years as a reference point, the court imposed a total sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years and three months, backdated to the date of arrest.

Orders Made

  • Total sentence of three years imprisonment for reckless wounding
  • Non-parole period of two years and three months, backdated to 21 February 2010 (date of arrest), expiring 20 May 2012
  • Overall sentence to expire on 20 February 2013
  • The common assault charge taken into account pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and subsumed within the three-year sentence
  • Parole conditions imposed: good behaviour; submission to supervision by the NSW Probation and Parole Service; compliance with its reasonable recommendations and directions regarding drug and alcohol rehabilitation

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that intoxication, while relevant to the circumstances of an offence, does not diminish the objective seriousness of reckless wounding, particularly where the offender had a consistent history of alcohol and drug-fuelled violence.
  • An early guilty plea remained a significant mitigating factor even where the offender had a prior record of custodial sentences for violent offences, though it did not override the weight of that record.
  • Where the Probation and Parole Service assesses an offender as unlikely to benefit from supervision based on repeated past failures, the court may nonetheless impose supervision conditions on parole where some evidence of possible benefit exists.
  • A standard non-parole period functions as a legislative reference point that the sentencing court takes into account when fixing the non-parole period, which may be set below the standard depending on the totality of relevant factors.
  • Fleeing the jurisdiction after a serious offence formed part of the factual background considered in sentencing, even though it did not attract separate charges in this proceeding.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 35(4) (reckless wounding; maximum penalty seven years; standard non-parole period three years)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A (aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing); s 32 (procedure for taking additional charges into account)

Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.