Citation: [2026] NSWDC 25
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 February 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The offender (referred to by the pseudonym "Alaska") was in an on-and-off intimate relationship with the victim ("SM") between 2020 and 2024. SM had a son from a previous relationship (aged 7 at the time of some of the offending), and the offender and SM had a daughter together.
Between 2022 and his arrest in 2024, the offender engaged in a sustained pattern of serious domestic violence against both SM and her son. This included multiple acts of common assault, intentional choking of SM, and intentional choking of SM's 7-year-old son — the latter apparently motivated by the child having witnessed the offender choking his mother into apparent unconsciousness. Some of the offending occurred while the offender was subject to an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO), and some while he was serving a Community Corrections Order for prior offences of common assault and ADVO breach. Additionally, the offender sought to intimidate SM so that she would not give evidence in court proceedings against him, leading to those earlier charges being dismissed.
The offender was charged with nine offences in total, including stalk/intimidate, two counts of intentional choking (one against SM, one against her son), common assault (against both SM and her son), ADVO contraventions, and one count of acting with intent to influence a witness in judicial proceedings. He entered guilty pleas to all charges at Parramatta Local Court on 28 August 2025.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of each offence, considered individually and in aggregate?
- What weight should be given to general deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community in the context of repeated domestic violence offending?
- What principles apply to the sentencing of intentional choking offences under s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), particularly in a domestic violence context?
- What principles apply to sentencing for an offence of seeking to influence a witness under s 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
- What subjective factors were relevant to the offender's sentence, including claims of remorse, childhood disadvantage (engaging Bugmy principles), and prospects of rehabilitation?
- What discount was appropriate for the offender's early plea of guilty?
Decision
Objective seriousness: His Honour assessed the offending as very serious, both individually and taken as a whole. The choking of SM (Sequence 3) was assessed as falling towards the upper end of objective seriousness, involving both hands, significant force, and a duration that continued despite SM's protests and physical attempts to escape. The choking of SM's 7-year-old son (Sequence 10) was assessed at the upper range of objective seriousness for a choking offence, characterised as cruel, unwarranted, and terrifying violence against a defenceless child. The court emphasised the gross breach of trust inherent in a stepfather figure choking a young child, noting the extreme disparity in physical strength, age, and power. The stalk/intimidate offence (Sequence 1) was assessed at least around the mid-range, involving credible threats made to a pregnant victim about her son. The common assault offences (Sequences 7, 8, and 18) were described as serious examples of this type of offending.
Sentencing principles applied: Newlinds SC DCJ emphasised that domestic violence offending is now regarded with the utmost seriousness, drawing on R v Stephens [2024] NSWCCA 170. General deterrence was identified as playing a significant role. For the choking offences, the court applied the framework from R v Sabbah [2025] NSWCCA 203, which identified choking in a domestic relationship as a serious abuse of trust and a betrayal, rendering the victim powerless. For the witness intimidation offence (Sequence 13), the court stressed that such conduct attacks the integrity of the justice system and that a custodial sentence is normally appropriate, with significant general deterrence required where a domestic violence offender dissuades the victim from giving evidence.
Subjective considerations: The court did not accept the offender's statements of remorse, finding a lack of genuine remorse and insight into his offending. Prospects of reoffending were assessed as significant. While the offender's difficult childhood was found to probably engage the Bugmy principles (recognising that background deprivation may diminish moral culpability), this was weighed against the other subjective findings. The offender received a 25% discount for his early plea of guilty pursuant to s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The court found that a term of imprisonment was the appropriate indicative sentence for each offence and that the threshold for an aggregate sentence under s 5 of the Act had been well and truly passed.
The court also received and considered a detailed Victim Impact Statement from SM, which described both the immediate and ongoing traumatic impacts of the offending on her and her son.
Orders Made
- The precise aggregate sentence imposed is not available from the truncated text of the judgment. Based on the reasoning, the offender was sentenced to a term of aggregate imprisonment for all nine offences.
- A 25% discount was applied for the utilitarian value of the early guilty plea.
- The s 5 threshold for an aggregate sentence was found to have been passed.
Note: The full text of the judgment was not available for this summary, so the final sentence and any specific non-parole period cannot be confirmed from the material reviewed.
Key Takeaways
-
Intentional choking in a domestic violence context was assessed at the highest levels of objective seriousness. The District Court applied the framework from R v Sabbah [2025] NSWCCA 203 and treated intentional choking as a serious abuse of trust and a betrayal, particularly where the victim was rendered powerless. Choking of a child victim in the same domestic context was assessed at the very top of the range.
-
Where a child who witnessed domestic violence was then directly targeted by the offender, the breach of trust significantly elevated the objective seriousness of the offence. The Court found that the extreme power imbalance between an adult acting as a parental figure and a young, defenceless child compounded the gravity of the choking offence.
-
A custodial sentence was imposed for seeking to influence a domestic violence victim not to give evidence. The District Court underscored that s 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) protects the integrity of the justice system, and that general deterrence is a significant consideration, particularly where intimidation results in charges being dismissed.
-
No finding of genuine remorse was made despite the offender's claimed expressions of contrition. The Court declined to accept remorse where the overall pattern of offending and the offender's conduct suggested a lack of real insight into the harm caused.
-
Bugmy principles, while accepted as relevant on the evidence of a difficult childhood, were not treated as determinative of the sentence. The Court weighed the offender's background disadvantage against the seriousness of the offending, the need for deterrence, and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1A), 61, 323(a)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 13(1), 14(1), 39, 40(5)(c)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 4A, 4B, 21A, 25D(2)(a)
Key cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- R v Sabbah [2025] NSWCCA 203
- R v Stephens [2024] NSWCCA 170
- Yoman v R [2020] NSWCCA 239
- Browning v R [2015] NSWCCA 147
- Kennedy v R [2008] NSWCCA 21
- R v Do (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
- R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
- R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
- R v Macadam-Kellie [2001] NSWCCA 170
-