Dahmes v The King - [2025] VSCA 213

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0085

ALEXANDER DAHMES	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TAYLOR and KIDD JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 213
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Dahmes (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harper, 10 April 2025)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Recklessly causing serious injury – Applicant headbutted, punched, kneed and elbowed victim at nightclub – Applicant had previous martial arts training – Whether judge erred in placing weight on martial arts training – Whether martial arts training aggravating factor – No procedural unfairness – Martial arts training a relevant factor in sentencing – Leave to appeal refused.

Elsayed v The Queen [2019] VSCA 113, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr CM Terry
Respondent:		Mr DA Glynn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Doogue & George
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA:
KIDD JA:

On 27 March 2025 the applicant pleaded guilty to a single charge of recklessly causing serious injury. On 10 April 2025 he was sentenced as follows[1]:
[1]DPP v Dahmes (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harper, 10 April 2025) (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Recklessly cause serious injury[2]	15 years	9 months in combination with 12 month Community Corrections Order	Base
Total Effective Sentence:		9 months’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		0 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 3 years 6 months Non Parole-Period 2 years 3 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Community corrections order for 12 month period with special conditions. The applicant is to: a) Undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol use. b) Be subject to supervision. c) Undergo programs to reduce reoffending.

[2]Contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on two grounds formulated as follows:
1. The sentencing discretion miscarried because the learned sentencing judge failed to accord procedural fairness to the applicant:
a.The learned sentencing judge placed significant weight on the applicant’s history of martial arts training in the reasons for sentence.
b.The learned sentencing judge did not raise this issue in the course of the plea and did not indicate that it may be considered to be a significant aggravating factor;
c.Had the applicant been aware that the learned sentencing judge considered this matter to be potentially aggravating, there were reasonable arguments that could have been made to persuade the judge that the applicant’s martial arts experience was not an aggravating factor and was entirely neutral in the assessment of moral culpability.
2. The learned sentencing judge erred by treating the accused [sic] history of martial arts training and boxing as an aggravating factor, in circumstances where it was not open to do so.
For the reasons that follow leave to appeal should be refused.

Summary of offending

On 27 May 2023 the applicant attended Retro Nightclub with his partner,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dahmes v The King

Details

AGLC: Dahmes v The King [2025] VSCA 213
Case: [2025] VSCA 213
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dahmes, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in the County Court of Victoria, where he was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury. The applicant had attacked the victim at a nightclub, using his head, fists, knees, and elbows. The County Court judge took into account the applicant's previous martial arts training as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The applicant contested this, arguing that the judge had erred in placing weight on his martial arts background, and that such training should not be considered an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the County Court judge had erred in considering the applicant's martial arts training as an aggravating factor, and whether the judge had procedurally erred in doing so. The court also needed to decide if the martial arts training was a relevant factor in the sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no procedural unfairness in the County Court judge taking the applicant's martial arts training into account as an aggravating factor. The court reasoned that the training was relevant to the applicant's capacity to inflict harm, and therefore could be considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court of Appeal referred to the decision in Elsayed v The Queen, where it was held that a person's physical training or skills could be relevant in assessing the degree of force used in an assault. The Court of Appeal found that the County Court judge had not erred in considering the martial arts training as an aggravating factor, and dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, the applicant's application for leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentence imposed by the County Court stands.

Orders