Imbornone v R

Case

[2017] NSWCCA 144

05 July 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 [2017] NSWCCA 144 05 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Imbornone was charged with multiple offences including aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence, reckless wounding in company, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and steal from person. He also had a charge of breach of a bond. Imbornone entered guilty pleas to all charges. The issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Imbornone had expressed remorse for his actions in the absence of direct evidence from him. The court considered whether untested assertions made to a third party could be relied upon and what principles applied to such statements. The relevance of Imbornone's mental illness to the sentencing exercise was also considered.

The court held that for an assertion of remorse to be considered, it needed to be more than a mere expression of regret or contrition. It needed to demonstrate a genuine understanding of the impact of the offending behaviour on the victim and a recognition of the wrongfulness of the conduct. The court found that Imbornone's assertions to a third party, while not directly from him, were relevant and could be considered if they met the required standard. The court held that the assertions demonstrated a level of remorse that was sufficient for the purposes of sentencing. The court also considered Imbornone's mental illness and its impact on his offending behaviour. The court found that while his mental illness was a mitigating factor, it did not excuse his behaviour or reduce his culpability.

The court sentenced Imbornone to a total of eight years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the level of planning and premeditation, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also considered Imbornone's background, his mental illness, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing and to protect the community.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Criminal Liability

  • Sentencing

  • Mens Rea & Intention

  • Breach of Bond

  • Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

  • Actual Bodily Harm

  • Mental Illness

  • Evidence of Remorse

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

476

Day v The King [2023] ACTCA 39
R v Wright [2025] NSWSC 822
R v Saliba (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 659
Cases Cited

14

Statutory Material Cited

12

Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127
R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353