AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 21 November 2025

Monardo v R

[2025] NSWCCA 199

Assault & violencePublic order & justice offences

Citation: Monardo v R [2025] NSWCCA 199
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 21 November 2025
Judges: Adamson JA, Chen J, R A Hulme AJ

Background

The applicant was a director of a business in Prestons, NSW. On 19 July 2023, two senior sheriff's officers attended the premises in full uniform to serve a statement of claim on the applicant and his wife. As Officer Belani was looking down at the documents, the applicant approached wielding a hammer, yelling aggressively, and proceeded to attack both officers.

Three offences arose from the incident: wounding a law enforcement officer while reckless as to causing actual bodily harm (maximum 12 years); assaulting a law enforcement officer causing actual bodily harm (maximum 7 years); and threatening injury to prevent lawful apprehension (maximum 12 years). The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed to the District Court for sentencing.

On 3 March 2025, Judge Herbert in the District Court sentenced the applicant to an aggregate term of 3 years and 1 month imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 2 March 2025. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on three grounds.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the "assault law officer causing actual bodily harm" offence (sequence 2), including whether she misconstrued the CCTV evidence, misapplied principles about mental disorder, and misidentified the act causing injury
  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's moral culpability by treating aggression test results as a "countervailing consideration"
  • Whether the sentencing judge applied a threshold higher than required by s 21A(3)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when declining to find the applicant "unlikely to reoffend"

Decision

Ground 1: Objective seriousness of sequence 2. The Court found no error in any of the three sub-grounds. On the question of impulsivity, the CCTV footage did not compel a finding that the applicant had acted impulsively when he threw the hammer. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to decline to characterise the act in that way, and no mistake of fact was established. On mental disorder, the Court confirmed that the existence of an underlying mental disorder is relevant to moral culpability but not to the assessment of objective seriousness. No error arose on that point either. Finally, the sentencing judge correctly identified the relevant "act" in sequence 2 as the forceful throwing of the hammer that struck Officer Belani in the head, causing him to lose teeth. That finding was reasonably open on the evidence.

Ground 2: Moral culpability and aggression test results. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge erred by treating his aggression test results as a "countervailing consideration" when assessing his moral culpability. The Court rejected this ground on the basis that it rested on a mischaracterisation of what the sentencing judge had actually found. Once the judge's finding was properly understood, no error in the moral culpability assessment could be identified.

Ground 3: The "unlikely to reoffend" mitigating factor. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge had applied a standard stricter than that required by s 21A(3)(g), and further that the evidence compelled a finding in the applicant's favour on this point. The Court rejected both arguments. Reading the sentencing judge's remarks as a whole, and having regard to the fact that the judgment was delivered ex tempore, any apparently elevated formulation was no more than a verbal infelicity rather than a misapplication of the statutory test. The judge was simply unpersuaded that the applicant was unlikely to reoffend. That conclusion was reasonably open given the qualified finding on remorse (the applicant was "not fully accepting of his actions") and the expert evidence showing aggression scores in the higher-than-average range with a propensity for aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • No error was established in the sentencing judge's refusal to characterise the hammer-throwing as impulsive, where the CCTV footage did not compel that conclusion and alternative findings remained reasonably open.
  • A finding about an offender's underlying mental disorder is relevant to the assessment of moral culpability but does not bear on the separate question of objective seriousness.
  • In dismissing the appeal on ground 3, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a sentencing judge's departure from the precise statutory language of s 21A(3)(g) will not constitute legal error where, read in context, the reasons disclose that the correct test was understood and applied.
  • An ex tempore judgment that addresses each limb of s 21A(3) in an orthodox and structured way provides a firm foundation for inferring that any verbal infelicity in one limb was a slip rather than a misapplication of the law.
  • The sentencing court was entitled to remain unpersuaded that an applicant was unlikely to reoffend where expert evidence disclosed above-average aggression scores and remorse was only partially accepted.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33B(1)(b), 60A(2), 60A(3)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(e), (f), (g), (h), (i)
- Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

Cases
- ACE Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2024] NSWCCA 4; (2024) 260 LGERA 358
- Camilleri v R [2023] NSWCCA 106; (2023) 308 A Crim R 52
- DG v R [2025] NSWCCA 137
- DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- IAG Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Chahoud [2019] NSWSC 767; (2019) 89 MVR 87
- MF v R [2024] NSWCCA 42
- Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
- R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
- Salameh v R [2024] NSWCCA 239
- SR v R [2024] NSWCCA 43
- Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84