AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 September 2024

R v RAMSAY

[2024] NSWDC 698

Assault & violenceTraffic & driving
SENTENCE S 33(1)(A) OF THE CRIMES ACT 1900 WHETHER INTOXICATION WAS SELF INDUCED

Citation: R v Ramsay [2024] NSWDC 698
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 September 2024
Judge: D Barrow SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man with a long history of severe alcohol and benzodiazepine dependency, pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 8 August 2022, he left the Sydney Clinic, a rehabilitation facility where he had been an inpatient for only three days, travelled to the home of the victim, and stabbed her in the upper chest with a 25 cm kitchen knife, causing a 2 to 3 cm wound. The victim was the wife of the offender's long-term friend, whom the offender knew well and whose children he was godfather to.

Earlier that morning, the offender had collected his prescribed medications from a chemist, including diazepam (Valium), and had received a clinical assessment at the clinic noting self-harm ideation but no thoughts of harming others. Expert reports confirmed he was tolerant to high doses of benzodiazepines and was being treated for both alcohol and benzodiazepine use disorder, each assessed as severe.

The offender also pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of a drug (diazepam), contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013, having driven to and from the victim's address. Both offences were sentenced together in the District Court.

  • Whether the objective seriousness of the wounding offence placed it in the mid-range or below, given the circumstances of the attack
  • Whether the offender's intoxication at the time of the offending was self-induced, so as to increase rather than reduce his moral culpability
  • Whether the offender's mental state and long-term addiction reduced his moral culpability for the purposes of sentencing
  • Whether the standard non-parole period of seven years for the s 33(1)(a) offence should be imposed
  • The appropriate aggregate sentence, accounting for the guilty pleas, subjective circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation
  • Whether the initial disqualification period imposed for the driving offence required correction, given it was not an alcohol-related offence

Decision

Objective seriousness. The court assessed the wounding offence as falling in the mid-range of objective seriousness. The stabbing was intentional and premeditated to a degree, involving the deliberate taking of a knife to the victim's home. However, the wound itself was relatively minor, the victim survived without lasting physical injury, and the attack was brief.

Intoxication and moral culpability. The court grappled carefully with whether the offender's intoxication was self-induced. The medications involved were prescribed for him, and the evidence did not establish that he had taken them in excess of his prescribed dose, given his high tolerance. However, the court found that the offender had a well-established pattern of substance abuse and was aware of the risks associated with his consumption. On balance, the court accepted that his mental state at the time of the offence, combining substance intoxication, alcohol and benzodiazepine use disorder, and a blunted affect noted by clinicians that morning, reduced his moral culpability, even if the intoxication could not be entirely disavowed.

Subjective circumstances. The court accepted a range of mitigating factors: the guilty pleas (attracting a 25% discount), the offender's expressed remorse including letters of apology to the victim and the court, his completion of a residential rehabilitation program, his acceptance into a further rehabilitation program, and the strong support of family and friends. Expert psychiatric and psychological reports confirmed long-standing and serious mental health and addiction issues. The court found genuine, if guarded, prospects of rehabilitation.

Standard non-parole period. The court declined to impose the standard non-parole period of seven years, citing the guilty plea, the assessment of objective seriousness, the reduced moral culpability, and the offender's subjective circumstances. Regarding the driving offence, the court also identified and corrected an error: the original sentence had imposed an interlock order, which was not available because the offence involved a drug rather than alcohol. Following further submissions, the disqualification period was set at two years, to commence upon the offender's release to parole.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months, backdated to commence 23 February 2023, with earliest release to parole on 23 October 2026
  • Balance of term of 3 years, expiring 22 October 2029
  • Indicative sentence for the s 33(1)(a) offence: 8 years, reduced by 25% to 6 years, with an indicative non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months
  • Indicative sentence for the driving offence: 16 months, reduced by 25% to 12 months
  • Disqualification from driving for 2 years, commencing upon release to parole (the interlock order was set aside as having been made without power)

Key Takeaways

  • Where an offender's prescribed medications contributed to an intoxicated state, the question of whether intoxication was "self-induced" requires close examination of the offender's awareness of risk and pattern of use, not merely whether the substances were legally obtained.
  • Reduced moral culpability arising from a combination of serious mental illness, long-term addiction, and an impaired mental state at the time of offending can displace the standard non-parole period, even for a serious offence of violence.
  • The District Court confirmed that an interlock order under s 206A of the Road Transport Act 2013 is only available for alcohol-related driving offences; imposing one for a drug-impaired driving offence is an error that can be corrected under s 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • A 25% discount for guilty pleas entered in the Local Court remained available across both offences, reflecting the utilitarian value of those pleas.
  • Completion of residential rehabilitation, engagement with ongoing treatment, and credible evidence of remorse, supported by multiple expert reports and character references, were all accepted as relevant subjective factors pointing toward genuine, if cautious, prospects of rehabilitation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a)
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), ss 112(1)(a), 206A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 43
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases
- Tuala v R [2015] NSWCCA 8
- Culbert v R [2021] NSWCCA 38
- R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
- Ryan v R [2011] NSWCCA 250
- Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
- Newman v R [2015] NSWCCA 270
- Porter v R [2015] NSWCCA 59
- Regina v Rudd [2010] NSWCCA 71
- Regina v Dickinson [2004] NSWCCA 457
- Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89
- R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68
- R v Chisari [2006] NSWCCA 19
- Chen v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 85
- Heron v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 215
- Regina v Pearson [2002] NSWCCA 429
- Connelly v R [2009] NSWCCA 293
- Muggleton v R [2015] NSWCCA 62
- Blakeney v R [2022] NSWCCA 277