R v Ross

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 552
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 December 2025
Judge(s): Wilson SC DCJ

Background

The offender was convicted following a judge alone trial of 11 counts on indictment, arising from domestic violence offending against his former partner between January 2013 and February 2014. He also pleaded guilty to one additional charge from 2023 in the Local Court. The victim was the offender's former partner and the mother of his two children.

The offending involved a sustained campaign of physical abuse, threats (including threats to kill), intimidation with a weapon, and degrading conduct over three distinct days. Much of the conduct occurred in the victim's home, at night, and while she was pregnant. The offender had been in custody since 2014, save for a short period in 2018 and 2019.

The primary sentencing issues were the appropriate commencement date for the sentences and the application of the principle of totality, given that the criminality of some counts substantially overlapped with others.

Legal Issues

• What is the objective seriousness of each count, assessed individually and in context?
• How should the principle of totality apply where criminality across multiple counts overlaps significantly?
• What weight should be given to general and specific deterrence in the context of prolonged domestic violence?
• What is the appropriate commencement date for the sentences, given the offender's lengthy time in custody?
• How should the court reflect the community's denunciation of domestic violence, vindicate the dignity of the victim, and protect the community?

Decision

The court emphasised that domestic violence offending calls for "condign punishment" (that is, punishment that fits the severity of the offence) and strong general deterrence. Wilson SC DCJ described the case as a "particularly serious example of domestic violence," involving a prolonged campaign of verbal and physical abuse and threats of serious violence. The court cited Yaman v R [2020] NSWCCA 239 for the proposition that women's rights to determine their own path in life must be vindicated through punitive and strongly deterrent sentences where necessary.

The court assessed objective seriousness for each count individually. For the most serious counts (Counts 1 and 2, involving the use of a knife on the pregnant victim accompanied by threats to cut the baby from her stomach and kill her), the objective seriousness was found to be well above mid-range. Where the criminality of one count was largely encapsulated by another (for example, Count 2's intimidation being subsumed by the weapon offence in Count 1), the court adopted a joint approach to avoid double punishment. Count 3 (throwing a pillow, telling the victim to cry into it) was assessed at the low end. Count 4 (dragging the victim by her hoodie) fell well below mid-range.

For Count 5 (placing a snake on the victim's back, knowing of her fear of snakes, while she was on all fours in the bathroom), the Crown highlighted the degrading and humiliating nature of the conduct. The court treated these incidents not in isolation but as part of a sustained episode, which informed the overall assessment of seriousness.

The court accepted submissions that the totality principle required moderation of the aggregate sentence so it remained proportionate to the overall criminality, rather than producing a crushing result from simply adding individual terms. An annexed schedule set out indicative sentences for each count. Only the 2023 charge attracted a discount for a guilty plea.

Orders Made

• The offender was sentenced on all 11 counts on the indictment and one additional Local Court charge.
• Indicative terms for each count were set out in Annexure A to the judgment (not reproduced in the truncated text available).
• Specific commencement dates were determined, accounting for time already served in custody since 2014.
• The totality principle was applied to ensure the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate.

Note: The full text of the sentencing orders (including specific terms and non-parole periods) was not available in the truncated judgment provided.

Key Takeaways

• Prolonged campaigns of domestic abuse call for punitive and strongly deterrent sentences, and individual acts (such as throwing a pillow) must be assessed in the context of the broader pattern of conduct rather than in isolation.

• Where multiple charges arise from the same incident, the criminality of one count may be subsumed within another to avoid double punishment. The District Court applied this approach to moderate the indicative sentence for the lesser count without eliminating the separate conviction.

• The principle of totality played a central role in structuring the multi-count sentence. Wilson SC DCJ accepted that some criminality could be "largely subsumed" and determined how individual indicative sentences should operate concurrently or partially cumulatively to produce an aggregate that was just and proportionate.

• Significant weight was assigned to aggravating factors specific to domestic violence, including that the offending occurred in the victim's home, at night, while she was pregnant, and involved weapons, degrading conduct, and threats to kill. Each of these factors elevated the Court's assessment of objective seriousness.

• Given that the offender had been in pre-sentence custody since 2014 for a sentence ultimately delivered in late 2025, the appropriate commencement date was identified as a primary sentencing issue requiring careful determination.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- Colomer v R [2014] NSWCCA 51
- R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
- Yaman v R [2020] NSWCCA 239
- Z v R [2015] NSWCCA 274