Local Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Police v Poolman [2014] NSWLC 3 Hearing dates: 22/10/2013, 3/12/2013 Decision date: 18 February 2014 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Magistrate Dare SC Decision: See [42]-[47]
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - domestic violence - principles - need for deterrence - custodial sentences called for - partial cumulation - "reconciliation of parties" irrelevant to sentence Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2007
Criminal Procedure Act 1986Cases Cited: Attorney-General for Tasmania v O [2004] TASSC 53
Blundell v R [2008] NSWCCA 92
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Gallegos v R [1999] WASCA 191
Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336
Melbom v R [2013] NSWCCA 210
Montero v R [2013] NSWCCA 214
Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 14
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Berry [2000] NSWCCA 451
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Glen (unreported, NSWCCA, 19/12/1994)
R v Greene [2001] NSWCCA 258
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
R v Quach [2002] NSWCCA 173
R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
R v Yin (unreported, NSW CCA, 9 November 1988)
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Rios v R [2012] NSWCCA 8
Rowe v R (1996) 89 A Crim R 467
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Ugle v R [2001] WASCA 268
Vragovic v R [2007] NSWCCA 46Category: Sentence Parties: NSW Police
Daniel Tai Poolman (offender)Representation: Mrs V Morgan (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr D Barron (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2013/170872
Judgment
Remarks on sentence
The offender, Daniel Tai Poolman, stands for sentence having entered pleas of guilty on 22 October 2013 to the following charges -
Seq. No.
Date
Offence
1.
2/6/2013
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Section 59(1), Crimes Act 1900
4.
2/6/2013
Intimidation
Section 13(1), Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
5.
2/6/2013
Assault
Section 61, Crimes Act 1900
6.
2/6/2013
Damage property
Section 195(1)(a), Crimes Act 1900
It will be readily apparent that sequences 2 and 3 were withdrawn on an earlier occasion arising out of 'charge negotiations' with the prosecuting authorities. Initially, pleas of not guilty were entered to all charges and a brief service order made. This is of more than academic interest because pleas of guilty arising out of successful negotiations have quite a bearing on any available discount: see R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56 at [11].
A conviction upon indictment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 59 and damaging property contrary to section 195(1)(a) carries a penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. Common assault contrary to section 61 carries a penalty of imprisonment for 2 years. An offence of intimidation contrary to section 13(1) also carries a penalty of imprisonment for 5…
Continue reading Police v Poolman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Poolman [2014] NSWLC 3
- Case
- [2014] NSWLC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in domestic violence cases. The primary concern was determining whether the offences warranted a custodial sentence, given the need for deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to assess the relevance of reconciliation between the parties in the sentencing process. It was necessary to weigh the statutory objectives of sentencing, including denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence, against the potential for rehabilitation and the likelihood of the offender reoffending.
In delivering the judgment, the Court emphasised the gravity of domestic violence offences and the importance of deterrence in such cases. The Court held that custodial sentences were called for, given the severity and frequency of the violence, and the need to protect the community. The Court further noted that the reconciliation of the parties was irrelevant to the sentencing process, as the primary goal was to address the harm caused and to deter future offending. The Court concluded that a partial cumulation of sentences was appropriate, reflecting the cumulative impact of the offences on the victim. The Court then proceeded to impose a custodial sentence, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court made several orders to give effect to the sentence. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the duration and conditions of the sentence provided. Additionally, the Court imposed fines and other penalties as appropriate, considering the nature and severity of the offences. The orders also included provisions for the defendant's rehabilitation and support, recognising the importance of addressing the underlying issues contributing to the offending behaviour. Finally, the Court outlined the process for any appeals against the sentence, ensuring that the defendant's legal rights were protected throughout the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [42]-[47]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.