AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 December 2025

R v Palamara

[2025] NSWDC 559

Assault & violence

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 559
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 12 December 2025
Judge(s): Haesler SC DCJ

Background

This matter concerned the sentencing of an offender following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of two offences: recklessly causing grievous bodily harm (section 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and affray (section 93C(1)).

The offending arose from an incident in September 2023 in a public park and children's playground in southern Wollongong. Two unrelated family groups had gathered independently, and their children were playing together. A verbal altercation developed between the offender's pregnant sister and the father of one of the children, with the child's mother then running over to join the argument. The offender, who had been some metres away, ran towards the child's mother and struck her in the face with his fist, knocking her unconscious. She was caught unaware and had no opportunity to defend herself. A melee involving members of both groups then erupted and lasted for several minutes.

The victim suffered devastating injuries. She was taken by ambulance to Wollongong Hospital and then transferred to Sydney Eye Hospital, where she was found to have a ruptured globe in her left eye requiring surgical repair. Her visual prognosis remained "very guarded," with likely long-term impact on the vision in that eye and further surgery anticipated. The central issue at trial had not been whether the assault occurred, but rather whether the offender was the person responsible. The jury resolved that identification question against him.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, assessed against the standard non-parole period framework?
  • What weight should be given to aggravating factors, including the offender's criminal history and the fact that the offending occurred while he was subject to an Intensive Correction Order (a form of conditional liberty)?
  • How should the Court account for the offender's subjective circumstances, including his background of disadvantage, mental health difficulties, and substance abuse?
  • How should the sentence reflect the principle against double punishment, given the offender had already served custodial time after revocation of his ICO substantially because of this offending?
  • What was the appropriate aggregate sentence for both offences, bearing in mind the overlap of common elements between the two counts?

Decision

Objective seriousness: His Honour found the offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm fell within the middle of the range of objective seriousness. The offender was a strong, fit man in his early 30s who struck a slighter-built woman with significant force, giving her no opportunity to protect herself. While the offender may have been motivated by a protective instinct towards his pregnant sister, the violence was entirely unjustified — there was no physical threat to the offender or his family members, and his action escalated what had been a verbal confrontation. The level of violence and the degree of harm were both assessed as high. As to the affray, while serious enough to warrant a custodial penalty, the Court noted it would ordinarily have been dealt with in the Local Court and was careful to avoid double-counting elements common to both offences.

Aggravating factors: The offender's criminal history was significant. He had prior convictions including a 2010 affray and a 2017 imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Critically, at the time of the offending, he was only three and a half months into a 14-month Intensive Correction Order imposed in May 2023 for another offence of violence. The breach of conditional liberty was treated as an aggravating factor. His criminal record precluded the leniency afforded to first offenders and warranted additional focus on retribution, deterrence, and community protection, consistently with Veen v The Queen (No 2).

Subjective factors: The Court received a psychological report detailing the offender's difficult upbringing, including childhood trauma and disadvantage, substance abuse issues, and diagnosed mental health conditions. His Honour applied the principles from Bugmy v The Queen, recognising the offender's background of disadvantage as a relevant mitigating consideration. However, the Court also noted, consistently with Munda v Western Australia, that the seriousness of the violence and the need to protect the community — including members of the offender's own community — could not be diminished by those subjective circumstances. The offender's intoxication at the time of the offence could not mitigate or excuse the conduct but helped explain it. Because the offender maintained his not guilty plea (as was his right), he could receive no discount for acceptance of responsibility or remorse.

Double punishment and sentencing adjustments: The Court carefully addressed the fact that the offender had served the full balance of his ICO in custody after the State Parole Authority revoked it substantially because of this offending. To avoid any element of double punishment, the Court provided some credit for that custodial period. The sentence was backdated to 2 May 2025 (the offender having entered custody on 4 August 2025 following the verdict), and he also received credit for two days on remand following his arrest in October 2023.

The Court applied the method of instinctive synthesis, declining to mechanistically adjust from the standard non-parole period, consistent with Way v R and Markarian v The Queen. A facilitation discount under section 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was applied in recognition of the offender's agreement to medical evidence being tendered by way of agreed facts, which assisted the efficient conduct of the trial.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
  • The sentence was backdated to commence on 2 May 2025, providing credit for the period of custody served following ICO revocation and for two days on remand.
  • The earliest release date is 1 November 2028, with the sentence expiring on 1 August 2030.

(Note: The full text of the judgment was truncated. The above orders are reconstructed from the available portions of the sentencing remarks and may not capture every precise detail of the final orders.)

Key Takeaways

  • Single-punch violence causing serious injury to a vulnerable, unsuspecting victim was treated as falling in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for section 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), warranting a substantial custodial term given the absence of any threat to the offender and the ferocity of the blow.

  • The District Court gave significant weight to the fact that the offender was only three and a half months into an Intensive Correction Order when he committed the offences, treating this breach of a promise to be of good behaviour as a powerful aggravating factor that demonstrated a failure to take advantage of lenient sentencing options.

  • To avoid double punishment where ICO revocation resulted in additional custody substantially caused by the offending being sentenced, the sentence was backdated to reflect custodial time already served, illustrating the balance between the aggravating factor of breach and the principle against double punishment.

  • Background disadvantage and childhood trauma consistent with Bugmy principles were acknowledged but did not substantially reduce the sentence, particularly in light of the offender's escalating pattern of violence and the community's need for protection, consistent with Munda v Western Australia.

  • No utilitarian discount or contrition-based reduction was available because the offender maintained a not guilty plea and put the Crown to proof, although the District Court expressly confirmed that no penalty attached to exercising that right.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35(2), 93C(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 22A
- Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 22B

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] H