AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 28 November 2025

R v Astles

[2025] NSWDC 497

Sexual offencesAssault & violenceDomestic & family violence
OFFENDING

Citation: R v Astles [2025] NSWDC 497
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 November 2025
Judge: Baker SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man aged 52 at the time of the offending, was sentenced for five domestic violence offences committed against a woman with whom he had been in a relationship since late 2022. The couple had known each other since primary school before reconnecting through social media. All offences were committed against the same victim.

The offending spanned two separate occasions. The first involved an assault in February 2023 during which the victim suffered a fractured arm. The second, far more serious episode occurred over 2 to 3 July 2023, when the offender subjected the victim to a sustained campaign of physical violence, including choking, and multiple acts of aggravated sexual assault. The offender locked the victim in his bedroom and, on each occasion, deprived her of her liberty following the sexual offending.

Two further offences were placed on the record by way of Form 1 (a procedural mechanism allowing additional offences to be taken into account at sentencing without separate conviction). These included a threat to kill the victim and bury her at Mangrove Mountain, and a sustained assault involving punching and headbutting.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for five domestic violence offences, including three counts of aggravated sexual assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and intentional choking?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's prior criminal history, including serious personal violence offences, in light of the principle in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (which limits the use of prior offending to increase a sentence beyond what is proportionate to the current offending, while allowing it as a legitimate aggravating factor)?
  • What discount, if any, was warranted for the guilty pleas entered on the first day of trial?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the overall sentence.
  • What ancillary orders were appropriate, including the duration of any apprehended violence order?

Decision

Baker SC DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 years and 4 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. The sentence was backdated to 3 July 2023, the date of the offender's arrest and remand in custody. The three aggravated sexual assault charges (each carrying a maximum of 20 years and a standard non-parole period of 10 years) formed the core of the sentencing exercise. The circumstances of aggravation in each count was the deprivation of the victim's liberty following the offence.

The offender's prior criminal record was treated as an aggravating factor. The court applied the Veen (No. 2) principle, which acknowledges that while a sentence must remain proportionate to the current offending and cannot be inflated solely on the basis of past conduct, a prior record of serious personal violence offences is a legitimate aggravating consideration. The court found the offender posed a well above average risk of re-offending.

The guilty pleas were entered on the first day of trial, and accordingly attracted only a 5% utilitarian discount rather than the larger discounts available for earlier pleas. The two Form 1 offences, including the threat to kill and the sustained assault, resulted in increases to the indicative sentences for the primary charges to which they were attached.

The court found special circumstances warranting a variation to the standard statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. The basis for this finding was the offender's mental health issues and the assessment that he would require significant support and lengthy supervision to reintegrate into the community without reoffending. However, given the length of the overall term, the variation was described as not significant.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of five offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years and 4 months' imprisonment, commencing 3 July 2023 and expiring 2 November 2041.
  • A non-parole period of 13 years was set, with eligibility for parole on 2 July 2036.
  • All five offences were directed to be recorded as domestic violence offences on the offender's criminal record under s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
  • A final apprehended violence order was made for the protection of the victim, by consent, to remain in force for the duration of the non-parole period plus an additional 10 years after the offender's earliest release date.
  • The court noted the potential application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), under which the State may apply to the Supreme Court for continued supervision or detention at the end of the sentence if the offender is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk.
  • A copy of the expert report by Mr Knight (dated 9 September 2025) was directed to be provided to Corrective Services to assist with treatment, rehabilitation and supervision.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied the Veen v The Queen (No. 2) principle in holding that the offender's prior record of serious personal violence offences was a legitimate aggravating factor, even though it could not be used to inflate the sentence beyond what is proportionate to the current offending.
  • A guilty plea entered on the first day of trial attracted only a 5% utilitarian discount, reflecting the minimal practical benefit to the criminal justice system of such a late plea.
  • Form 1 offences, while not attracting separate convictions or penalties, can increase the indicative sentence for the principal charge by giving greater weight to personal deterrence and community retribution.
  • Special circumstances justifying a variation to the statutory non-parole ratio can be established where an offender's mental health needs and risk profile indicate a requirement for extended post-release supervision, even where the overall sentence is lengthy.
  • The extended apprehended violence order, set to run beyond the standard period, was justified by reference to the nature of the offending and the victim's ongoing expressed fears, which the court accepted as good reasons for the departure from the default duration.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1A), 59(1), 61J
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 12(2), 13(1), 39(2B), 39(2C)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 572
- McNaughton v The Queen (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
- Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
- R v Astles (Christopher) [2001] NSWCCA 235