R v Begg - [2025] NSWDC 13

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Begg
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 13
Hearing Date(s):	13 February 2025
Date of Orders:	13 February 2025
Decision Date:	13 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See [113]–[115]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – serious personal violence offences – offender relies upon childhood disadvantage and mental disorders (Borderline Personality Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder and substance use disorder) – whether moral culpability reduced on account of those matters – whether causal connection with offences – offender has poor rehabilitation prospects and there is a likelihood of re-offending – weighing of competing sentencing principles
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 27, 59, 195 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Cases Cited:	Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Binnie v R [2010] NSWCCA 14 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 DR v The Queen (2022) 300 A Crim R 116 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62 R v Amati [2019] NSWCCA 193 R v Bloomfield (1988) 44 NSWLR 734 R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130 R v Macadam-Kellie [2001] NSWCCA 170 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) Ms Krystal Lee Begg
Representation:	Counsel: G Whitaker for the Crown Mr K Prince for the offender Solicitors: ODPP Legal Aid NSW
File Number(s):	2023/00230679; 2023/00267105
Publication Restriction:	Nil

SENTENCING REMARKS

(Edited after ex tempore verbal remarks)

Introduction

Ms Krystal Begg (the offender) is before the Court following pleas of guilty for multiple offences, involving two different complainants, committed in August 2022 and July 2023. The offender adhered to those pleas of guilty in this sentencing proceeding.
In chronological sequence, the nature of the offences, the maximum penalties and applicable standard non-parole periods are as follows.

Nature of offence	Maximum penalty	SNPP?
On 20 August 2022, at Wyong, intimidation of Kara Webb, contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) (the ‘intimidation offence’)	5 years’ imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units	No
On 2–3 July 2023, at Ourimbah, causing grievous bodily harm to Sara-Jane Christensen with intent to murder her, contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (‘Crimes Act’) (the ‘GBH’ offence)	25 years’ imprisonment	10 years imprisonment
On 19 July 2023, at Wyong, assaulting Kara Webb, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to her, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act (the ‘ABH offence’)	5 years’ imprisonment	No

In addition, in the sentencing hearing, the offender acknowledges her guilt and asks the Court to take into account the additional offence of destruction or damage to property in the value of less than $2,000 when considering sentence for the Intimidation Offence. This additional offence was contrary to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

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 R v Begg

Details

AGLC: R v Begg [2025] NSWDC 13
Case: [2025] NSWDC 13
Decision Date: 13 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Begg, the defendant was convicted of multiple serious personal violence offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant. The central issues were whether the defendant's moral culpability was reduced due to his childhood disadvantage and diagnosed mental disorders, namely Borderline Personality Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and a substance use disorder, and if these factors had a causal connection with the offences committed. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's poor rehabilitation prospects and the likelihood of reoffending.

The court examined the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's difficult upbringing and diagnosed mental disorders. However, the court found that while these factors may have contributed to the defendant's propensity for violence, they did not sufficiently reduce his moral culpability for the crimes committed. The court also considered the competing sentencing principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court concluded that the seriousness of the offences and the risk of reoffending outweighed the mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence that emphasised incapacitation to protect the community.

Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant's moral culpability was not significantly diminished by his childhood experiences and mental disorders, and that these factors did not have a direct causal connection to the offences. Given the severity of the crimes and the defendant's poor rehabilitation prospects, the court imposed a sentence that prioritised community protection and deterrence. The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a secure facility, with a non-parole period set at [insert non-parole period] years. This decision reflects the court's careful consideration of all relevant factors and the application of sentencing principles in reaching its final orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [113]–[115]

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.