AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 23 May 2019

R v Coombes

[2019] NSWDC 295

Assault & violenceTheft & property

Citation: R v Coombes [2019] NSWDC 295
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 May 2019
Judge: Grant DCJ

Background

The offender, a 24-year-old woman, pleaded guilty to two charges arising from an incident in West Wollongong on 28 August 2018. The charges were aggravated entry into a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence (under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (under s 59(1) of the same Act).

The incident began with a dispute over a romantic relationship. After a series of abusive messages, the offender entered the home of one of the victims through an unlocked sliding door during the day, screamed a threat, and threw her mobile phone at the female victim, causing bruising and minor lacerations to the face. A second victim, who intervened physically, received scratches to his face. That second assault was taken into account on a Form 1 (a mechanism under NSW law by which additional offences are acknowledged at sentencing without being separately prosecuted).

The offender was arrested the following day, participated in a police interview, and made admissions. She had a background marked by parental instability, adolescent mental health difficulties, and more recent ice (methamphetamine) use, though she reported having ceased using the drug after a period in custody on remand.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for aggravated entry into a dwelling and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having regard to the objective and subjective circumstances?
  • What weight should be given to general deterrence, rehabilitation, and community protection in this sentencing exercise?
  • Whether a community correction order (rather than full-time custody or a suspended sentence) was the appropriate disposition for a young, first-time offender with strong rehabilitation prospects.

Decision

Grant DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of both offences as being at the low end of the scale. On the entry charge, the judge noted that the door was unlocked, nothing was physically broken, entry occurred in daylight, and the offender left voluntarily after a short time. The assault involved a single act, caused minor injuries, and occurred in a highly emotionally charged situation. The judge also acknowledged that the victim had sent a provocative message earlier that day, in effect daring the offender to attend the premises.

On subjective circumstances, the judge considered the offender's youth, her early guilty plea (attracting a 25% discount), her supportive relationship with her father, her engagement in vocational training, her reported cessation of drug use, and the findings of a psycho-social assessment. These factors pointed toward significant prospects for rehabilitation.

Citing R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534, the judge confirmed that general deterrence is an important consideration for break and enter offences but cannot produce a sentence disproportionate to the actual offending or the particular offender. Drawing on R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 and Yardly v Betts (1979), Grant DCJ emphasised that community supervision combined with stable employment and treatment programs can serve community protection more effectively than imprisonment in appropriate cases.

The judge concluded that a community correction order was the appropriate disposition. The order was structured to address rehabilitation (through supervision, treatment, and drug abstinence conditions) and to provide a meaningful punitive and deterrent element through 120 hours of community service work.

Orders Made

The offender was convicted and placed on a Community Correction Order for 12 months, subject to the following conditions:

  • Must not commit any offence
  • Must appear before the court if called upon
  • Must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections officer
  • Must participate in a rehabilitation program or receive treatment
  • Must abstain from the use of illicit drugs
  • Must perform 120 hours of community service work
  • Must report to the Wollongong Community Corrections Office within 5 days of the order

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that general deterrence is a significant factor in break and enter sentencing, but cannot override the principle of proportionality to the actual offence and offender.
  • A guilty plea entered at an early opportunity attracted a 25% sentencing discount, consistent with established NSW sentencing practice under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Where objective seriousness sits at the low end of the scale and strong subjective factors favour rehabilitation, a community correction order may be an available and appropriate sentence even for offences carrying maximum terms of imprisonment.
  • Provocation or goading by a victim does not excuse offending but may be relevant to the court's assessment of objective seriousness and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
  • Sufficient rehabilitation prospects existed, supported by evidence of ceased drug use, vocational engagement, and family stability, to justify prioritising community-based supervision over custodial punishment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 111(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534
- R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
- Yardly v Betts (1979) 1 A Crim R 329