AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 5 June 2026

R v Monteleone (No 2)

[2026] NSWDC 233

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence
CURIAL PUNISHMENT

Citation: R v Monteleone (No 2) [2026] NSWDC 233
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 June 2026
Judge: Abadee DCJ

Background

The offender was convicted by jury of wounding with intent to murder, contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence arose from a domestic violence context: after a brief relationship of approximately two months, the victim ended things in mid-April 2024. The offender's behaviour escalated over the following weeks, culminating in an apprehended violence order (AVO) being taken out against him.

On 8 May 2024, the offender attacked his former partner with a kitchen knife in an undercover carpark beneath a gym in Alexandria, repeatedly stabbing her in the neck and chest. Bystanders intervened and the attack stopped. The victim sustained serious wounds, though fortunately no injuries to internal vessels or organs, and no lasting haemodynamic instability.

A related charge of contravening a restriction in an AVO was also before the Court, to which the offender had pleaded guilty in the Local Court. The offender had pre-emptively pleaded guilty at trial to the lesser charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but the jury returned a verdict of the more serious charge of wounding with intent to murder.

  • Whether the offender's intention to murder was formed only during the attack itself, or extended further back in time, and what weight that finding carried at sentencing
  • The objective seriousness of the offending and where it fell on the scale of seriousness for the principal offence
  • The relevance and weight of extra-curial punishment (in particular, injuries the offender sustained during the attack)
  • Whether the De La Rosa methodology applied, including how to assess the relationship between objective and subjective factors in fixing the sentence
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a variation to the standard non-parole period ratio
  • How to approach parity and comparability with sentences imposed in comparable cases

Decision

Issue 1: Intention to murder and objective seriousness

Abadee DCJ rejected the offender's submission that the intent to kill was formed only during the brief period of the attack itself. The court found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the intention to murder had been formed for a longer period than the attack, noting that the jury had rejected the offender's direct evidence on his state of mind after receiving a Liberato direction. The court accepted the Crown's submission that the brevity of the attack was not, in itself, a mitigating factor, drawing an analogy with other serious offences that may be completed in seconds. The offending was found to fall above the mid-range of seriousness, and the court accepted that the attack reflected planning, though not at a level engaging the statutory aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Issue 2: Extra-curial punishment

The offender sustained injuries during the attack, and the court considered whether those injuries constituted extra-curial punishment warranting a reduction in the sentence. The court acknowledged the established principle that extra-curial punishment may reduce the sentence otherwise appropriate, but assessed the weight to be given to this factor in the context of the overall circumstances.

Issue 3: Subjective factors and moral culpability

The court applied the De La Rosa methodology, examining objective and subjective factors in turn. The offender was a first-time inmate. The court accepted evidence of remorse, some insight, and positive behaviour in custody. The offender's moral culpability was nonetheless assessed as significant given the nature, context, and planning of the attack, including that it occurred in deliberate breach of an AVO and targeted a woman who had sought protection from the court.

Issue 4: Special circumstances

The court found that special circumstances existed, primarily because of the accumulation of sentences. The court was also guided by the offender being a first-time inmate who had demonstrated remorse, insight, and positive behaviour in custody. Consistent with the approach in Gillette v R [2026] NSWCCA 59, the court struck a balance between the reasons for the special circumstances finding and the need for the non-parole period to still reflect the objective gravity of the offending and the requirements of general deterrence.

Issue 5: Parity with comparable cases

The court noted the offender's submissions distinguishing his case from the offenders in Vaughan v R and Liu v R, including differences in the nature and extent of the injuries and the means of attack. The Crown accepted that the facts more closely resembled Vaughan. Consistent with the approach endorsed in Gillette, the court did not consider it necessary to exhaustively analyse the similarities and differences between this offender and those in comparable decisions.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of wounding with intent to murder (s 27, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and contravening a restriction or prohibition in an AVO (s 14(1), Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)).
  • A sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was imposed for the principal offence, commencing 8 February 2025 and expiring 7 February 2038.
  • A non-parole period of 8 years and 7 months was set, expiring 7 September 2033, after which the offender is eligible for release on parole.
  • Both offences were to be recorded on the offender's criminal record as domestic violence offences pursuant to ss 4, 11 and 12(6) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
  • A 25% discount was applied to the penalty for the AVO contravention offence, reflecting the early guilty plea entered in the Local Court.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the brevity of a serious attack is not, in itself, a mitigating factor: the court drew an analogy with other serious offences completed quickly, including sexual assault and murder by firearm.
  • Where a jury has rejected a defendant's account of their own state of mind after a Liberato direction, a sentencing court must exercise considerable caution before accepting post-verdict assertions about intention that are inconsistent with that verdict.
  • A deliberate breach of an AVO, committed in the context of escalating domestic violence following the end of a relationship, was treated as a significant feature of the overall offending, even where the AVO contravention was sentenced separately.
  • Special circumstances may be established by the accumulation of sentences combined with evidence of a first-time inmate's remorse, insight, and positive custodial behaviour, though the resulting variation to the non-parole period ratio must not undermine the need for the non-parole period to reflect objective gravity and general deterrence.
  • Under the De La Rosa approach, the court assesses objective and subjective factors in sequence, applying the principle from Veen v The Queen (No 2) that antecedents and subjective features cannot elevate a sentence beyond what is proportionate to the objective gravity of the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 27
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 4A, 4B, 5, 10A, 21A

Cases
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Gillette v R [2026] NSWCCA 59
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- Liu v R [2023] NSWCCA 30
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600
- R v Amati [2019] NSWCCA 193
- R v Macadam-Kellie [2001] NSWCCA 170
- R v Mitchell [2007] NSWCCA 296; (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
- R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
- R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130
- *Ryan v