AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 18 May 2020

R v Ragg

[2020] NSWDC 210

Sexual offencesAssault & violenceFirearms & weaponsDomestic & family violence
CRIMINAL SENTENCE COMMON ASSAULT RECKLESS WOUNDING INTIMIDATION USING EXPLOSIVE FLUID

Citation: R v Ragg [2020] NSWDC 210
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 May 2020
Judge(s): King SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 28-year-old man, appeared for sentence on thirteen offences committed against his long-term domestic partner on 30 October 2018, with one further offence committed on 1 November 2018. The couple had been in an intermittent relationship for approximately twelve years, which the victim described as violent from the outset.

The offending arose following an extended period of drug use. Over the course of one day, the offender subjected the victim to a sustained sequence of assaults that escalated from punching and stabbing with scissors, to pouring diesel over her body, attempting to set her hair alight while she remained covered in diesel, and committing four counts of aggravated sexual assault. He also detained the victim, threatened her, contravened an existing Apprehended Violence Order (AVO), and the following day threatened the victim to withhold true evidence.

The offender had pleaded guilty in the Deniliquin Local Court on 2 July 2019 and maintained those pleas, attracting a 25 per cent discount on each offence. He had been in custody in relation to this offending since 31 November 2018.

  • The appropriate aggregate sentence for thirteen offences of varying objective seriousness, committed in a continuing sequence against the same victim
  • The objective seriousness of each individual offence, including the use of explosive fluid and multiple attempted causes of grievous bodily harm with intent
  • The weight to be given to subjective factors, including the offender's deprived background, drug use, and history of prior offending
  • The risk of reoffending and the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
  • The appropriate non-parole period, including whether the offender's time on parole for a prior offence should be reflected in the sentence

Decision

King SC DCJ characterised the offending as objectively very serious, involving a prolonged and escalating sequence of violence, sexual assault, and degradation within a domestic setting. The court found that the victim suffered severe physical injuries and ongoing psychological sequelae, which were detailed in her Victim Impact Statement. The context of a twelve-year history of domestic violence was treated as a significant aggravating feature.

In assessing the individual offences, the court identified the four counts of aggravated sexual assault and the two counts of attempted cause of grievous bodily harm with intent as the most serious. The use of diesel and repeated attempts to ignite the victim's hair while she remained soaked in the substance was treated as particularly grave conduct. The intimidation, witness threat, and AVO contravention offences reflected a sustained pattern of coercive and obstructive behaviour.

The court acknowledged relevant subjective considerations, including the offender's difficult background (applying the principles from Bugmy v R and Munda v Western Australia), his drug dependency, and his comparatively better institutional behaviour since arrest. However, the court found these factors were substantially outweighed by the objective gravity of the offending and the high assessed risk of reoffending. The court specifically noted that dangerousness under Veen (No 2) was a relevant consideration, and that community protection required significant weight in the sentencing calculus.

An aggregate sentence was imposed under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court declined to make any further adjustment to the non-parole period to reflect time served on parole for an unrelated matter, finding that breaches of conditional liberty carry consequences, particularly where the conduct bears some similarity to the earlier breach.

Orders Made

• Non-parole period of 18 years
• Balance of term of 6 years
• First eligible for parole on 30 November 2036
• Balance of term expires on 30 November 2042
• Direction pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 that each offence be recorded on criminal history as a "domestic violence offence"

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied Veen (No 2) principles, confirming that where an offender presents a high risk of reoffending, community protection is a legitimate and weighty sentencing consideration, even if it cannot operate as the sole determinant of sentence length.
  • A 25 per cent guilty plea discount was applied across all thirteen counts, consistent with the plea having been entered at an early stage in the Local Court.
  • Under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the offender was formally warned that the State may apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention or supervision order in respect of the four aggravated sexual assault counts, given that such offences are designated "serious offences" under that Act.
  • The sentencing court found that a deprived background and drug dependency, while relevant mitigating factors under Bugmy principles, carried limited weight in the face of very serious, prolonged, and escalating offending.
  • All thirteen offences were directed to be recorded on the offender's criminal history as domestic violence offences pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33, 35, 47, 61, 61J, 86, 322, 344A
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 13, 14
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
- Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
- Doe v R [2013] NSWCCA 248
- Dunn (2007) NSWCCA 312
- Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
- Ibraham (2005) NSWCCA 43
- Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
- Lyndon (2003) NSWCCA 152
- Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
- R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561
- R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
- R v Betts [2015] NSWCCA 39
- R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
- R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20
- R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
- R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
- R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
- R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464
- R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 132
- Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465