Citation: R v Rahimi [2024] NSWDC 538
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 November 2024
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 28-year-old Afghan-born Australian man, was sentenced for wounding another person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 7 years.
The offending arose from a belief held by the offender that the victim had hacked his phone. Over several weeks, the offender made repeated contact with the victim, who declined multiple requests to meet. On 19 September 2022, the offender made four phone calls to the victim in a single day, eventually securing an agreement to meet. That evening, at Merrylands railway station, the offender confronted the victim on a staircase while the victim was bent over and vomiting.
CCTV footage recorded the offender striking the victim at least eight times to the head, chest, and torso with a sharp object. The victim sustained two lacerations, one to the left cheek and one near the left nipple, both of which were sutured at Westmead Hospital. The victim was discharged the following day. Approximately 90 minutes after the attack, the offender called 000 and declared he had stabbed someone and intended to hand himself in. He was arrested the next day and has been in custody since.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of the offence within the range for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?
- What aggravating factors applied?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
- Was a finding of special circumstances warranted so as to alter the ratio of non-parole period to head sentence?
- What discount applied to the sentence for the late plea of guilty?
Decision
His Honour found the offence to fall at a level roughly equidistant between the bottom and the middle of the range of objective seriousness. The Crown's initial submission that it was a serious example of the offence was not accepted, as it had rested on a claim (later withdrawn) that the victim was stabbed eight times with a knife, and on an assertion that the injuries "could have been catastrophic" for which there was no evidentiary basis.
Two aggravating factors elevated the offending beyond its base objective seriousness. First, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was planned, not spontaneous or opportunistic. The pattern of persistent phone calls and the offender's presence at the victim's location supported that finding. Second, the offender had a prior criminal history that included multiple offences of similar character, including two previous convictions for reckless wounding.
The offender's subjective circumstances included a diagnosis of schizophrenia, a difficult personal background, and incomplete schooling. A psychiatric report from Dr Richard Furst expressed concern that incarceration could increase the risk of relapse into acute phases of schizophrenia and render custody more onerous. His Honour acknowledged those opinions but noted that the offender had already been on remand for over two years without those scenarios materialising. The court also noted this was not the offender's first period of custody.
A finding of special circumstances was made, but only to a modest degree. The late plea of guilty, entered ten days before the trial date, attracted a discount of ten per cent. The resulting sentence was three years and seven months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and seven months backdated to the date of arrest.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment for the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
- Non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months, commencing 20 September 2022 and expiring 19 April 2025.
- Balance of term of 12 months, commencing 20 April 2025 and expiring 19 April 2026.
- The two reports of Dr Furst were directed to accompany the sentencing warrant.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that an absence of evidentiary support will lead to rejection of Crown submissions on objective seriousness, even where serious harm was conceivable. Assertions that injuries "could have been catastrophic" require a proper evidentiary foundation.
- Planning and premeditation constitute a distinct aggravating factor, capable of elevating objective seriousness even where the physical injuries fell within the lower range for the offence.
- A prior history of similar offending, including earlier reckless wounding convictions, operated as a further aggravating factor in the sentencing calculus.
- Psychiatric evidence of vulnerability in custody did not automatically support a substantial special circumstances finding where the offender had already served an extended remand period without the predicted deterioration occurring, and where prior custodial experience reduced the force of the argument.
- A guilty plea entered only ten days before a scheduled trial date attracted a discount of ten per cent, reflecting the limited utilitarian value of the late plea under the sentencing discount framework.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a) (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm)
Cases:
- DPP (C'th) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1