AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 10 June 2016

R v Dale Anton Reynders

[2016] NSWDC 107

Assault & violencePublic order & justice offences
ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM ASSAULT POLICE OFFICER

Citation: R v Dale Anton Reynders [2016] NSWDC 107
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 June 2016
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, born in 1980, pleaded guilty on 7 March 2016 to four offences arising from a single evening of violence on 4 September 2014. The events began at a licensed hotel in Jindabyne, where the offender was consuming alcohol, and escalated through his arrest and transport to the local police station.

After refusing to leave the premises and assaulting a security officer (causing actual bodily harm to a female security guard), the offender was arrested and placed in a police vehicle. He then launched a sustained physical attack on Constable White, punching him repeatedly in the head and face. A second assault occurred when the vehicle arrived at the police station, during which the offender punched Constable White in the eye, breaking his eye socket. A further assault in the charge room resulted in a fractured nose for Constable White.

The offender asked the court to take into account three additional charges on a Form 1: failing to leave licensed premises, common assault on a security officer, and spitting on a police officer during decontamination procedures at the station.

  • What aggregate sentence appropriately reflected the total criminality across four discrete indictable offences and three Form 1 matters?
  • Whether the sentences should run concurrently, given the offences arose from the same general episode, or whether accumulation was required to reflect distinct criminal acts.
  • Whether special circumstances existed under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to justify departing from the standard ratio of non-parole period to head sentence.
  • How to weigh the offender's subjective circumstances (including alcohol dependency and psychological issues) against the serious objective gravity of the offences, particularly the grievous bodily harm to Constable White.

Decision

The District Court found the offences to be objectively serious, particularly Count 3 (causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer under s 60(3) of the Crimes Act 1900), which carried a maximum penalty of 12 years and a standard non-parole period of five years. Constable White sustained a fractured eye socket requiring surgery with a titanium plate and screws, a fractured nose, fractured sinus, pinched nerve, and ongoing vision deterioration. The victim impact statement described lasting physical, psychological, and financial consequences for the officer and his family.

His Honour rejected the submission that the offences warranted a high degree of concurrency simply because they arose from the same general occasion. The court distinguished the hotel, the police vehicle, and the police station as separate locations and separate episodes of criminal conduct, finding that Counts 3 and 4 in particular were discrete acts. Applying the principle of totality as discussed in Cahyadi v R and R v Rae, the court determined that some accumulation was appropriate to reflect the overall criminality.

On the offender's subjective case, the court acknowledged his alcohol dependency and need for ongoing psychological counselling. These factors grounded a finding of special circumstances under s 44(2), justifying a longer parole period relative to the non-parole period than would ordinarily apply, to support rehabilitation upon release.

The court imposed an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, with a non-parole period of 15 months and a further term of 15 months, producing a total sentence of two years and six months.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s 59(1)), assault police officer (s 58), causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer (s 60(3)), and assault police officer causing actual bodily harm (s 60(2)) under the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Three Form 1 offences (failing to leave premises, common assault, and assaulting an officer in execution of duty) were taken into account in arriving at the sentence.
  • An aggregate sentence was imposed: a non-parole period of 15 months, commencing 9 June 2016 and expiring 8 September 2017, followed by a further term of 15 months expiring 8 December 2018, giving a total head sentence of two years and six months.
  • Parole eligibility date set at 8 September 2017.
  • Upon release to parole, the offender was directed to accept supervision by Community Corrections and to attend rehabilitative services for alcohol abuse as directed.
  • Four back-up charges under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 were withdrawn and dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that offences arising from the same general evening of conduct are not automatically entitled to a high degree of concurrency; where criminal acts are geographically and temporally distinct, accumulation may be necessary to reflect total criminality.
  • Under the totality principle, as applied in Cahyadi v R and R v Rae, an aggregated sentence must show some accumulation where there are multiple discrete offences, but the overall result must remain proportionate.
  • Special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can be established by reference to an offender's alcohol dependency and need for psychological treatment, permitting variation of the standard non-parole to head-sentence ratio.
  • Serious lasting injury to a police officer, including the need for surgical intervention and ongoing treatment, and the broader impact on the officer's capacity to perform duties, are significant factors in the objective gravity assessment for offences under ss 60(2) and 60(3) of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • A victim impact statement disclosing permanent physical consequences, financial loss, and psychological effects on the victim officer played a material role in the court's assessment of the harm occasioned by the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 58, 59(1), 60(2), 60(3)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44(2), 53A

Cases:
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
- Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99
- McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
- R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
- R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- Veen v R (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465