Citation: R v Nathan Black; R v Timothy John Trautsch [2025] NSWDC 447
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 August 2025
Judge: Turnbull SC DCJ
Background
In January 2023, two NSW Police officers responded to a triple-zero call reporting a naked middle-aged woman sitting by the side of a road in Emu Plains. The woman, who suffered from schizophrenia, had been released from a nearby correctional centre earlier that day and had self-ceased her prescribed antipsychotic medication in the period leading up to the incident. She has since passed away, though her death was unrelated to the physical events of that day.
The two officers, both Senior Constables attached to the Nepean Police Area Command, arrived on scene in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle. They concluded it was necessary to exercise powers under the Mental Health Act 2007 to apprehend the woman for her own protection, and there was no intention to arrest her for any criminal offence. Their training in weapons and use of force was current, and both were authorised to carry and use OC spray in the course of their duties.
Body-worn video and nearby CCTV footage captured the events. The footage was described by the court as particularly distressing, involving debasing and offensive images and distressing audio. The officers were arrested in March 2023, and both entered guilty pleas in March 2025, approximately 59 days before the scheduled commencement of a three-week trial.
Legal Issues
- Whether the use of OC spray on the victim constituted an unauthorised use of a prohibited weapon under the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
- Whether the officers' physical conduct toward the victim constituted common assault under the Crimes Act 1900
- Whether Officer Black's disclosure of protected information (relating to body-worn video footage) constituted intentional communication of protected information under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007
- The appropriate sentences, taking into account aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim, the positions of trust and authority held by the offenders, and the application of the standard non-parole period for the weapons offence
- The extent of the utilitarian discount available for the guilty pleas entered prior to trial
Decision
Both officers pleaded guilty to common assault and to the unauthorised use of OC spray on the victim, a 48-year-old woman with schizophrenia. The court found the offences to be serious, noting multiple aggravating features: the victim was vulnerable, the force applied was gratuitous, and the offenders held positions of trust and authority as sworn police officers. The court treated the standard non-parole period of five years attaching to the weapons offence as a significant guidepost.
Officer Black faced two additional charges of intentionally communicating protected information under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, relating to body-worn video footage. He pleaded guilty to both counts.
Because both offenders entered their guilty pleas 59 days before the scheduled trial date, the court applied a 10% utilitarian discount to their custodial sentences under section 25D(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court imposed aggregate sentences of imprisonment for both men, structured to reflect the totality of their offending while maintaining proportionate non-parole periods.
The court also addressed applications from the media regarding access to the exhibits. It ordered the release of the CCTV footage in pixelated form to facilitate open justice, but declined at that stage to release the body-worn video, describing it as particularly distressing. The court expressed that the offenders had conducted themselves with dignity during proceedings and acknowledged they had a future.
Orders Made
Nathan Black (aggregate sentence):
- Head sentence of 5 years and 9 months imprisonment, commencing 8 August 2025, expiring 7 May 2031
- Non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months; eligible for parole on 7 November 2028
- Component sentences (if imposed separately): Common assault: 19 months; Unauthorised use of prohibited weapon (OC spray): non-parole period 2 years 6 months, head sentence 4 years 6 months; each charge of intentionally communicating protected information: 9 months
Timothy John Trautsch (aggregate sentence):
- Head sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing 8 August 2025, expiring 7 February 2031
- Non-parole period of 3 years; eligible for parole on 7 August 2028
- Component sentences (if imposed separately): Common assault: 19 months; Unauthorised use of prohibited weapon (OC spray): non-parole period 2 years 6 months, head sentence 4 years 6 months
Key Takeaways
- The District Court imposed substantial terms of full-time imprisonment on two police officers who assaulted and unlawfully deployed OC spray against a vulnerable woman with schizophrenia, treating their positions of trust and authority as significant aggravating factors.
- Under section 25D(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a 10% utilitarian discount applied where guilty pleas were entered 59 days before a scheduled trial, even where the pleas carried no apparent element of remorse beyond pragmatic utility.
- The standard non-parole period of five years attached to the unauthorised use of a prohibited weapon charge under the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 operated as a guidepost, and the court factored this into structuring both the individual and aggregate sentences.
- Vulnerability of a victim as an aggravating factor carries particular weight in sentencing where the offenders held statutory powers specifically directed at protecting persons in that vulnerable condition.
- In addressing media access applications, the court balanced open justice against the distressing nature of the evidence, ordering release of pixelated CCTV footage while deferring any decision on the body-worn video.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61 (common assault)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D(2)(b)
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), ss 15, 22
- Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 40(1)
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(1)
Cases:
- Betts v R [2015] NSWCCA 39
- Clarkson v R [2007] NSWCCA 70
- Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
- Melvaine v R [2019] NSWCCA 274
- R v Durocher-Yvon [2003] NSWCCA 299
- R v LP [2010] NSWCCA 154
- R v Sampson [2025] NSWCCA 25
- R v White [2025] NSWCCA 111
- Regina v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
- Ryan Gurney v Regina; Aaron Willetts v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 48
- Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21
- Suleman v R [2009] NSWCCA 70
- Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281