Citation: R v Altinok [2015] NSWDC 419
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 November 2015
Judge: Berman SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 19-year-old male, appeared for sentencing on multiple offences committed on two separate occasions in early 2015. The first offence, committed on 19 January 2015, involved the offender entering a residential premises through an unlocked front door and stealing handbags, wallets, and an iPad. He claimed the theft was to recover a drug debt owed to him, and he was unaware the occupant's mother was present at the time.
The second and more serious group of offences occurred on 26 February 2015 and involved the offender's then-girlfriend as the victim. Over the course of that evening, the offender drove her car erratically and dangerously, deliberately damaged the vehicle's interior, threw her mobile phone at her face, slammed her head into the steering wheel, struck her repeatedly, and stabbed her arm with scissors. He was also charged with driving while disqualified.
The offender had a prior criminal history and had already been serving a sentence for a separate assault on the same domestic violence victim. He was said to be a heavy user of the drug methamphetamine ("ice"), though the court noted this could not be treated as the sole explanation for his conduct.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for each offence, having regard to objective seriousness, the offender's youth, his drug use, and his criminal history?
- Whether the break and enter offence should be characterised as the aggravated form (given the presence of an occupant).
- How the principle of totality should operate when imposing sentence across a series of discrete but related offences.
- The appropriate weight to give youth and prospects of rehabilitation as mitigating factors.
- Whether drug use provided any mitigation, or was otherwise relevant to sentencing.
Decision
His Honour accepted the Crown's position that the break and enter offence was not the aggravated form, as the offender genuinely did not know anyone would be present in the premises. Nevertheless, the offence remained serious, attracting a two-year head sentence in isolation.
The offences against the domestic violence victim on 26 February 2015 were treated as substantially more serious. His Honour described the offender's conduct as reprehensible, noting the escalating pattern of conduct during the one episode: from dangerous driving and property damage, through to physical assault and ultimately stabbing the victim with scissors. The offender's statement during the evening, that he had considered stabbing her in the throat but "held back," was noted by the court. His Honour also rejected the characterisation of this conduct as entirely out of character, finding the offender had a prior history of violence that pre-dated his heavier ice use.
His Honour acknowledged the offender's youth as a genuine mitigating factor, observing that an 18-year-old does not suddenly acquire adult maturity upon turning 18. However, the court placed significant weight on general and personal deterrence, particularly in the context of domestic violence. His Honour noted that women in dysfunctional relationships are entitled to the same protection of the law as anyone else, and that deterrence had to be a significant component of the sentences imposed.
On the question of drug use, His Honour was explicit: self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating factor, but the connection between drug use and offending remained relevant to assessing prospects of rehabilitation. The court expressed cautious hope that the length of the sentence might incentivise the offender to abandon drug use, which in turn would improve his prospects of rehabilitation.
Orders Made
- Aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed, commencing 27 May 2015, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months (eligible for release to parole on 26 November 2017) and a head sentence of 5 years.
- For driving while disqualified: fine of $300 and disqualification from driving for 4 years.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that self-induced intoxication by drugs is not a mitigating factor in sentencing, but the relationship between drug dependency and offending remains relevant when assessing rehabilitation prospects.
- Where an offender commits multiple discrete acts of criminality within a single episode, the sentencing court will not treat all sentences as fully concurrent; separate or partly accumulated sentences may be required to reflect the independent criminality of each act.
- Applying the totality principle, the court structured an aggregate sentence to avoid a crushing result while still reflecting the full range of offending across both incidents.
- Youth at the time of offending carries genuine mitigating weight, with the court recognising that legal adulthood does not automatically bring adult maturity. However, this weight is not absolute and may be reduced by a prior history of violence.
- In domestic violence cases, the District Court emphasised that significant deterrence is required regardless of the nature of the relationship, affirming that victims in dysfunctional relationships are equally entitled to the law's protection.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Section 166 certificate (relating to driving whilst disqualified, referenced procedurally in the judgment)
Cases cited: No cases were cited in the provided judgment text.