Medium Neutral Citation: R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331
Hearing dates: 15 August 2025
Date of orders: 22 August 2025
Decision date: 22 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) For sequences 1 and 5, after deducting 25% for the early guilty plea and taking into account the matter on the form 1, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to commence 30 May 2025 and to expire on 29 May 2028.
(2) The Offender is to be immediately released on an Intensive Correction Order, to expire on 29 May 2028, on conditions found at [83].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Robbery in company — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Discussion of guideline in R v Henry — Motivation of Offender — Youth — Remorse/contrition — Extremely disadvantaged childhood engaging “Bugmy” principle — Mental health in part cause of offending — Time spent in custody — Prospects of rehabilitation and reoffending — Totality — Intensive Correction Order — Safety of community paramount

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 59(2); s 97(1)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) s 3A; s 21A(3); s 66(1)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Foaialima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270
Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416
R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 12
R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453
R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566
R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368
R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296
Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Michael Broadstock Maloney (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Ngai (Solicitor) (Crown)
R Steward (Offender)
Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Vanzino Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/339977
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Overview

Michael Broadstock-Maloney (“the Offender”) is 19 years old. He stands to be sentenced for two serious acts of criminality and asks that another be taken into account. He has endured a significantly deprived childhood which has directly contributed to him becoming drug addicted, leading inevitably to a poor criminal history. His motivation for the offending was, in part, a misguided and irrational sense of grievance towards the Victim because of perceived bad conduct of the Victim towards the Offender’s mother. Following his arrest in September 2024, he spent nearly 3 months in custody before being released on bail. Since his release, he has made tremendous efforts to turn his life around, which to date have been successful. He is now drug-free and has the opportunity for full-time employment.

The facts

The parties have agreed as to a comprehensive Statement of the Facts.
They boil down to…

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 Broadstock-Maloney

Details

AGLC: R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331
Case: [2025] NSWDC 331
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Broadstock-Maloney, the defendant was convicted of robbery in company and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Broadstock-Maloney and accomplices robbed a group of individuals at a public place, assaulting one of the victims in the process. The dispute involved the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering a range of mitigating and aggravating factors.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentence for the offences committed, the factors to be considered under the “Bugmy” principle, and the impact of the defendant's disadvantaged background and mental health issues on his culpability and sentencing. The court also needed to consider the defendant's remorse, the time he had already spent in custody, and his prospects for rehabilitation and reoffending.

The court noted the defendant's disadvantaged childhood, mental health issues, and the circumstances of the offending. It found that the defendant's motivation was influenced by his upbringing and mental health, and that he had shown genuine remorse. The court also considered the principle established in R v Henry, which requires that the sentence be proportionate to the offending and the offender. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, reduced by 25% for the early guilty plea, was appropriate, along with an intensive correction order. The safety of the community was deemed paramount in the court's decision.

The court ordered that Broadstock-Maloney be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, with a reduction of 25% for the early guilty plea, to commence on 30 May 2025 and expire on 29 May 2028. The defendant was to be immediately released on an intensive correction order, with conditions specified in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) For sequences 1 and 5, after deducting 25% for the early guilty plea and taking into account the matter on the form 1, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to commence 30 May 2025 and to expire on 29 May 2028.

(2) The Offender is to be immediately released on an Intensive Correction Order, to expire on 29 May 2028, on conditions found at [83].

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270
Citation 1 (Para 67)

…me that there have been a number of statutory and other developments since the guideline judgment, as was acknowledged by Johnson J in Foaialima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 at [24] - [26].…
Hanley v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 262
Citation 2 (Para 53)

…[52]). This factor has been identified as significant in cases where the offender has made significant progress toward rehabilitation (see Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262 at [37]; Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [53]; Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276 at [38]). I propose to give it significant weight.…
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Citation 3 (Para 53)

…as significant in cases where the offender has made significant progress toward rehabilitation (see Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262 at [37]; Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [53]; Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276 at [38]). I propose to give it significant weight.…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 4 (Para 54)

…In Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (“ Bugmy ”) at [40] the High Court said:…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 5 (Para 23)

…objective seriousness of the offences the Court is to have regard to the legislative guidepost provided by the maximum penalty: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 132.…
Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276
Citation 6 (Para 53)

…r has made significant progress toward rehabilitation (see Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262 at [37]; Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [53]; Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276 at [38]). I propose to give it significant weight.…
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Citation 7 (Para 44)

…entencing the Offender and that, because of his youth, emphasis should be placed on maximising the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation: KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51.…
Gadsden v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 453
Citation 8 (Para 7)

…Genuine remorse - R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 at [36]; R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [10]; R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [41].…
R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398
Citation 9 (Para 53)

…my opinion, a real risk that the Offender's progress towards rehabilitation would be nullified if he were to be further imprisoned (see R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398 at [52]). This factor has been identified as significant in cases where the offender has made significant progress toward rehabilitation (see Hanley…
Regina v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…Youth - R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [17]; R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].…
R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…Youth - R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 at [17]; R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 at [69] - [70].…
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Citation 12 (Para 2)

…Where participation in the criminal activity was a result of immaturity - R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 at [40].…
R v Karacic [2001] NSWCCA 12
Citation 13

…en (2011) 244 CLR 120 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 12 R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566 R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCC…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 14 (Para 25)

…In R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 (“ Henry ”), Spigelman CJ promulgated guidelines for this offence, stating at [162]:…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 15 (Para 24)

…In sentencing on multiple counts regard must be had to the criminality involved in each offence: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416.…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) 13(1)
2 mentions (from Para 21)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 3A
2 mentions (from Para 56)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 59(2)
2 mentions (from Para 20)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Broadstock-Maloney [2025] NSWDC 331
Hearing dates:	15 August 2025
Date of orders:	22 August 2025
Decision date:	22 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) For sequences 1 and 5, after deducting 25% for the early guilty plea and taking into account the matter on the form 1, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to commence 30 May 2025 and to expire on 29 May 2028. (2) The Offender is to be immediately released on an Intensive Correction Order, to expire on 29 May 2028, on conditions found at [83].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Robbery in company — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Discussion of guideline in R v Henry — Motivation of Offender — Youth — Remorse/contrition — Extremely disadvantaged childhood engaging “Bugmy” principle — Mental health in part cause of offending — Time spent in custody — Prospects of rehabilitation and reoffending — Totality — Intensive Correction Order — Safety of community paramount
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 59(2); s 97(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) s 3A; s 21A(3); s 66(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Foaialima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 Hanley v R [2018] NSWCCA 262 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 12 R v Gadsen [2005] NSWCCA 453 R v Harmouche [2005] NSWCCA 398 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566 R v Nair [2003] NSWCCA 368 R v Parsons & Poore [2002] NSWCCA 296 Smaragdis v R [2010] NSWCCA 276
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Michael Broadstock Maloney (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: C Ngai (Solicitor) (Crown) R Steward (Offender) Solicitors: ODPP (Crown) Vanzino Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2024/339977
Publication restriction:	Nil