Citation: R v Blankevoort [2026] NSWDC 217
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 June 2026
Judge: Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The offender and the victim were former domestic partners who share children. In May 2025, during the early hours of the morning, the offender attended the victim's home while heavily intoxicated and has no memory of the events that followed. The offending comprised three acts: kicking open a door that struck the victim in the face causing a laceration (common assault), damaging the door in doing so (property damage), and engaging in a course of conduct that included pushing over a whiteboard and returning to the home after being told to leave (stalking and intimidation).
The offender faced a significantly more serious charge arising from the same events, but the Crown did not proceed with it. That development occurred in the context of a foreshadowed pre-trial argument by the offender seeking to exclude late-served prosecution material. The court observed that this did not reflect well on the Crown or the system generally, while making clear there was no criticism of the individual lawyers involved.
The offender entered guilty pleas on the second day of a listed trial, after a pattern of very late disclosure by the Crown. He had been in continuous custody since 22 May 2025, with approximately 281 days of that period referable solely to the offences for sentence.
Legal Issues
- What discount for the guilty plea was appropriate, given the late stage of the plea and the Crown's dilatory disclosure?
- What was the objective seriousness of each of the three offences?
- What weight should be given to the offender's extensive criminal history, balanced against his significant subjective case, including childhood deprivation, drug and alcohol addiction, and homelessness?
- Whether a full-time custodial sentence was warranted, and whether time already served in custody constituted an appropriate aggregate sentence.
Decision
Guilty plea discount: The court allowed a 5% discount, reflecting the late timing of the plea. The offender argued that the plea came late because of the Crown's extensive last-minute disclosure, and that the plea was to a materially different factual matrix than the original indictment. Newlinds SC DCJ rejected any basis for a greater discount or for inferring that the plea would have been entered earlier but for the Crown's conduct. The court reasoned that the offender must have always known his own guilt, the victim had given a statement, he had no memory to contradict her, and the prosecution case was always reasonably strong.
Objective seriousness: The assault was assessed as falling well below the mid-range. It involved a single, spontaneous act, reckless rather than intentional, and the offender immediately expressed concern for the victim. The property damage fell toward the lower range: the door was damaged as a by-product of the kick rather than by a deliberate act of destruction, and there was no evidence of significant impact on the door's function or value. The intimidation charge, assessed holistically across the course of conduct, fell slightly below the mid-range, distinguishable from more serious patterns of prolonged stalking that can extend over days or weeks.
Subjective case and moral culpability: The offender's criminal history was described as extensive, running to 34 pages and including prior personal violence, AVO contraventions, and bail breaches. The court declined to find he was a person of good character. However, the court applied the principles from Bugmy v The Queen in recognising that severe childhood disadvantage does not diminish in relevance over time. It also gave weight to the offender's homelessness at the time of offending, his relapse into drug use after receiving tragic personal news, and his current sobriety of over one year with a concrete and supported post-release plan. Moral culpability was assessed as reduced by reason of those factors, notwithstanding the criminal history.
Disposition: The court found the threshold for full-time imprisonment was crossed. Indicative sentences before aggregation were one year for the assault, six months for the property damage, and one year for the intimidation. Taking into account totality, the significant overlap between the three offences (which arose from a single, uninterrupted course of conduct), and the time already spent in custody, the court determined that the time served already represented an appropriate aggregate sentence of one year.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to an aggregate fixed term of imprisonment of one year, commencing 26 June 2025 and expiring 26 June 2026.
- A 5% discount was applied to reflect the guilty pleas.
- The sentence was backdated by one year to account for time spent in custody for these matters, with some accumulation for other matters served concurrently during part of that period.
- The offender was released at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a 5% guilty plea discount may be appropriate even where the Crown's late and extensive disclosure contributed to the timing of the plea, where the court is not satisfied the plea would have been entered earlier had disclosure been timely.
- Childhood deprivation and its ongoing effects, combined with entrenched drug and alcohol addiction and homelessness, can reduce an offender's moral culpability and moderate the weight given to general and specific deterrence, even where the offender has a long criminal history involving personal violence.
- Under the totality principle, where multiple domestic violence offences arise from a single, brief, uninterrupted course of conduct involving the same victim, significant concurrency of sentences is warranted.
- Time already spent in custody can represent the appropriate aggregate sentence where the overall period served is proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the offender's circumstances, allowing the court to backdate a sentence accordingly.
- The court expressed clear criticism of the Crown's pattern of late disclosure, noting it did not reflect well on the Crown or the system, while declining to attribute any individual fault to counsel or solicitors appearing in the matter.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61, 195(1)(a)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 53A, 166
Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116
- Kelly v R [2016] NSWCCA 246
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600
- R v Andrew SWAN [2021] NSWDC 783
- R v Craig [2022] NSWDC 539
- R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50