Citation: R v Carroll [2025] NSWDC 284
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 April 2025
Judge: R Tupman DCJ
Background
The offender, a 54-year-old man at the time of offending, stabbed his partner's adult son three times with a 20-centimetre kitchen knife at their shared Maroubra home on 9 July 2023. During the same incident, the offender also swung the knife at his long-term partner of approximately ten years, nearly severing her right index finger. Both victims required surgery.
At the time of the attack, the offender was subject to an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) prohibiting him from assaulting either victim. He was 54 years old; his partner was 64 and her son was 21. The offender fled the scene when police arrived, and was not arrested until 4 August 2023. He has remained in custody since that date.
After his arrest, the offender made 20 phone calls from custody to a number registered to his partner, 11 of which connected, in breach of a new non-contact ADVO condition served on him at the time of arrest.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for the substantive offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, carrying a maximum of 25 years and a standard non-parole period of 7 years?
- How should four Form 1 offences (reckless wounding of the partner, three ADVO contraventions) be taken into account in a meaningful way when sentencing for the substantive offence?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a non-parole period shorter than the statutory ratio (that is, the ratio of non-parole period to total sentence)?
- Whether the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea (EAGP) scheme negotiations produced an appropriate charging structure for these proceedings.
Decision
The court found the offending was objectively serious. The offender used a large kitchen knife, attacked the primary victim multiple times, and pursued him after the initial wounding. The attack occurred in the victims' home in breach of an existing ADVO, which elevated the seriousness of the conduct. The court found only full-time imprisonment was appropriate, a proposition not contested by either party.
In sentencing, the court took into account the offender's extensive criminal history, which included prior violence against the same partner, and the fact that he was on conditional liberty at the time. Against those factors, the court accepted that the offender's moral culpability was somewhat reduced by a severely disadvantaged background, including sexual abuse suffered while in juvenile detention, and an ongoing psychiatric condition. Those matters were also noted to diminish, to a limited degree, his utility as a vehicle for general deterrence.
The court found special circumstances warranting a departure from the standard one-third parole ratio (ordinarily the parole period would be one-third of the total term). The primary basis was the offender's need for extended community supervision to address mental health issues and reduce the risk of drug relapse. An overall sentence of six years was imposed, with a non-parole period of four years.
The court also commented critically on the EAGP scheme negotiations that produced the charging structure in this matter. Her Honour observed that two of the ADVO breach offences were unnecessary as standalone charges because the underlying conduct was already integral to assessing the objective seriousness of the substantive offence and the reckless wounding Form 1 offence. The court noted that treating those breaches as separate Form 1 offences added unnecessary administrative burden without affecting the appropriate sentence, describing this outcome as illustrative of ways in which the EAGP scheme is no longer working as intended.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s 33(1)(a), Crimes Act 1900).
- Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 6 years, commencing 9 July 2023 and expiring 8 July 2029.
- Non-parole period of 4 years, commencing 9 July 2023 and expiring 8 July 2027.
- Parole period of 2 years, commencing 9 July 2027 and expiring 8 July 2029.
- Four offences taken into account on Form 1.
- No new ADVO made, as one was already in force.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that an existing ADVO prohibiting assault of the victims was a factor that elevated the objective seriousness of both the substantive wounding offence and the Form 1 reckless wounding offence.
- Where Form 1 offences are included that constitute an integral part of the same criminal episode as the substantive charge, the court indicated those may be unnecessary as separately listed matters, adding only administrative burden while making no practical difference to the appropriate sentence.
- A finding of special circumstances was supported by the offender's need for extended post-release supervision to manage mental health and substance abuse, justifying a non-parole period constituting two-thirds of the total term rather than the standard ratio.
- Subjective factors including childhood sexual abuse suffered in juvenile detention, poor education, disrupted employment, and psychiatric diagnosis reduced moral culpability to a degree, but the court noted the offender had been given many opportunities over many years to address those underlying issues.
- The judgment contains express criticism of the EAGP scheme as applied in this matter, with the court observing that the scheme's Local Court negotiations produced a charging structure that was, at least in part, procedurally unnecessary and inconsistent with the scheme's intended operation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33(1)(a), 35(4)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 5 (threshold for full-time imprisonment); s 166 (related offence committal)
Cases: No cases were cited in the text provided.