R v Assi-Leplaw

Case [2022] NSWDC 108


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Assi-Leplaw [2022] NSWDC 108
Hearing dates: 11 April 2022
Date of orders: 11 April 2022
Decision date: 11 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 59 - 60

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – reckless wounding in company – mental and substance use disorders

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 35

Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 55

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 10

Cases Cited:

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

McCulloughvR (2009) 194 A Crim R 439

RvTran [2005] NSWCCA 35

R v Watt (unrep, 2/4/97, NSWCCA)

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr J Assi-Leplaw (offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms C Daly for the ODPP
Mr H Salter for the offender
File Number(s): 2020/00366484
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCING REMARKS

  1. The offender is before the Court for sentencing on a charge that on 25 December 2020 in Kirrawee he wounded Corey Watson in company and was reckless as to causing him actual bodily harm, contrary to s 35(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the principal offence).

  2. The offender also acknowledges guilt and asks the Court to take into account on the principal offence an offence on a Form 1, being that on 26 December 2020 in Kirrawee, he had in his possession a prohibited drug, namely 0.53grams of Psilocybin (hallucinogenic mushrooms), contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).

  3. The maximum penalty for the principal offence is 10 years imprisonment and/or $11,000 fine. The principal offence carries a statutory non-parole period of 4 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence on the form 1 is 2 years’ imprisonment and/or $2,200 fine.

  4. It is common ground that by reason of the guilty plea, the offender is entitled to a 25% discount on sentence for the principal offence to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea.

Circumstances of offending

  1. The Crown and the offender reached agreement on the basic facts. The Statement of Agreed Facts was part of the Crown sentencing bundle. Multiple photographs depicting the offending conduct were observable.

  2. At about 11:30pm, the offender, with two friends (Ms Irvine) and another (unknown) male entered the ground floor of an apartment complex in Kirrawee. It was suggested in that Ms Irvine was the owner, or at least had possession of a unit within the apartment. At about 11:43pm, Ms Irvine and the offender got into a verbal argument in the foyer and were still arguing as they exited the front door of the apartment complex.

  3. At about 11:48pm, the victim started fighting the unknown male and the latter came to be on the ground with the victim standing over him. They were located on the inside of the same apartment complex. A very short time later, the offender and Ms Irvine opened the door to get back into the foyer…

Continue reading R v Assi-Leplaw

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Assi-Leplaw [2022] NSWDC 108
Case
[2022] NSWDC 108
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Assi-Leplaw, the respondent was convicted of reckless wounding in company. The case came before the court for sentencing, with the respondent having a history of mental and substance use disorders. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account the respondent's background and the nature of the crime. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing approach for an offence committed by an individual with significant mental health and substance use issues. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the respondent's personal circumstances, including their mental health status and the impact of their substance use on their offending behaviour.

The court examined the respondent's background, including their history of mental health issues and substance use, and the impact these factors had on their offending behaviour. It considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also took into account the respondent's lack of a prior criminal record and their willingness to engage in treatment programs. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour, while also ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and provided appropriate deterrence. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offence and to provide appropriate deterrence. However, it also recognised the need for the respondent to receive treatment and support to address their mental health and substance use issues. As such, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a requirement that the respondent participate in a treatment program while in custody.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be imprisoned for a period of three years, with a non-parole period of two years. The court also ordered that the respondent participate in a treatment program while in custody, with a requirement to continue with treatment upon release. The court further ordered that the respondent be subject to a good behaviour bond for a period of five years upon release, with conditions including regular drug and alcohol testing and participation in a rehabilitation program. These orders reflect the court's consideration of the respondent's background and the need to address the underlying issues that contributed to their offending behaviour, while also ensuring that the sentence provided appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 59 - 60

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.