AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 April 2019

R v Goder

[2019] NSWDC 413

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIMES SENTENCE RECKLESSLY CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM STEAL FROM THE PERSON

Citation: R v Goder [2019] NSWDC 413
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 18 April 2019
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 31-year-old man with a history of mental illness and chronic drug use, appeared for sentencing on two offences committed in the early hours of 22 December 2017 in Parramatta. The victim was an acquaintance who lived in the same street.

The offender approached the victim and a companion on a footpath and, without provocation, launched a prolonged and ferocious physical assault. He struck the victim between 16 and 20 times, shoved his face into a streetlight pole, threw him to the ground, and stomped and kicked his face. The attack was so severe that the offender broke one of his own hands. When the victim attempted to leave and briefly took out cash to hail a taxi, the offender followed him, stole $250, punched him again, and threatened to kill him.

The offender told police the assault was motivated by a drug debt he believed the victim owed him. He pleaded guilty to recklessly causing grievous bodily harm under s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and to stealing from the person under s 94 of the same Act. He entered those pleas at the first available opportunity and received a 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.

  • The objective seriousness of each offence and where each fell within the range for offences of that kind
  • The relevance of the offender's mental illness (schizophrenia and possible borderline personality disorder) and drug dependency to culpability and sentencing
  • Whether general deterrence and specific deterrence remained relevant considerations given the offender's mental health
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence
  • The appropriate sentence for each offence, taking into account the guilty plea, criminal history, and rehabilitation prospects

Decision

Colefax SC DCJ assessed the recklessly causing grievous bodily harm offence as above the mid-range of objective seriousness, describing the attack as "vicious, cowardly and brutal." The steal from the person offence was placed towards the bottom of its range, as it arose from opportunistic conduct after the main assault had concluded.

The court found that the offender's mental health conditions and drug use were not causally connected to the offending on the night in question. The psychiatrist's report confirmed that the behaviour was motivated by the alleged drug debt rather than by any psychotic episode or drug-induced state. Accordingly, while those matters were relevant to other aspects of sentencing, they did not reduce the offender's culpability for the attack itself.

On deterrence, the court held that general deterrence retained some application despite the offender's mental illness, as did specific deterrence. The protection of the community, however, was engaged fully. The court expressed the view that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were poor, though not entirely absent, and that a longer parole period would give those prospects the best chance of being realised.

Because of the offender's mental health issues and the finding on rehabilitation, the court identified special circumstances warranting a departure from the standard ratio between the head sentence and non-parole period. A 25 percent sentencing discount applied to both offences for the early guilty plea.

Orders Made

  • Recklessly causing grievous bodily harm (s 35(2)): Imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months commencing 24 December 2017 and expiring 23 June 2020; balance of term of 2 years expiring 23 June 2022.
  • Stealing from the person (s 94): Imprisonment for 6 months commencing 24 December 2017 and expiring 23 June 2018 (this term had already expired by the date of sentence).
  • Both sentences backdated to the date of arrest, 24 December 2017.
  • The court recommended that, if the offender is admitted to parole, the treatment recommendations in the psychiatrist's report be provided to supervising probation and parole officers.

Key Takeaways

  • A finding that an offender's mental illness and drug dependency had no causal connection to the offending will limit, but not entirely eliminate, the weight those factors carry in mitigation of sentence.
  • Under the sentencing framework applied here, general and specific deterrence remain applicable considerations even where an offender has significant mental health issues, though their weight is reduced.
  • Special circumstances justifying a variation of the non-parole period to head sentence ratio can be found where an offender has poor but non-negligible rehabilitation prospects, combined with a mental illness requiring management during a supervised parole period.
  • The District Court applied a 25 percent discount for an early guilty plea, reflecting its utilitarian value alone, consistent with standard New South Wales sentencing practice.
  • Where agreed facts provide no information about a victim's ongoing medical treatment or long-term injuries, and no victim impact statement is tendered, the sentencing court is left without evidence of the full consequences of the offending, a gap the court here noted explicitly.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35(2) (recklessly causing grievous bodily harm)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 94 (stealing from the person)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 5 (threshold for imposing imprisonment)

Cases cited: None stated in the judgment.