R v Casini

Case [2019] NSWDC 376


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Casini [2019] NSWDC 376
Hearing dates: 11 June 2019
Date of orders: 18 June 2019
Decision date: 18 June 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, to date from 8 May 2018 and expire on 7 November 2020, with a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months. The total term of the sentence is 3 years and 9 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentence – aggravated detain cause actual bodily harm – domestic violence – relevance of mental health issues – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act)1999
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hurst v R [2017] NSWCCA 114
R v Edigarov (2001) 125 A Crim R 551
R v Kilic (2016) 91 ALJR 131; [2016] HCA 48
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Albert Frank Casini (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Naividi for the Crown
Mr C Murnane for the offender
File Number(s): 2018/143410, 2018/159812
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

  1. Albert Frank Casini, 46 years of age, appears for sentence in relation to one offence of aggravated detain, cause actually bodily harm, pursuant to s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence in 20 years’ imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non‑parole period.

  2. The offender pleaded guilty on 5 February 2019 at the Wyong Local Court. An indictment was presented today in circumstances where there was a defect in the original court attendance notice. Having regard to the timing of the plea, I propose to allow a discount on sentence of 25%.

  3. The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 8 May 2018. Accordingly, the sentence imposed today will be backdated to that date.

Agreed facts

  1. The offender, Albert Frank Casini, is 46 years old. The victim, Sandy Lemon, is 47 years old. As at 23 April 2018, the victim and the offender had been in an intimate relationship for a period of five months. The offender and the victim were living together at The Entrance.

The day prior to the offence, 23 April 2018

  1. On Monday 23 April 2018, the victim and the offender were together at the unit in the process of packing. At approximately 6pm, the offender said to the victim, “You neglect me, you don’t pay me enough attention.” The victim replied, “How old are you, five? I work six days a week and I’ve had to spend it moving and you didn’t give me a hand.”

  2. As a result of that conversation an argument commenced and the offender told the victim, “That’s it, I’m leaving you, you selfish bitch.” To avoid further confrontation the victim walked downstairs to another unit to visit her friend and neighbour, Sherene Bolr. The victim stayed with Ms Bolr for the night.

The offences on 24 April 2018

  1. Early…

Continue reading R v Casini

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Casini [2019] NSWDC 376
Case
[2019] NSWDC 376
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casini involved the defendant being convicted and sentenced for aggravated detention causing actual bodily harm in the context of domestic violence. The defendant's mental health issues were considered as a mitigating factor during the sentencing phase. The matter was heard in the relevant court where the legal issues surrounding the defendant's mental health and its impact on the sentencing were deliberated.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's mental health issues constituted a special circumstance that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating effects of the defendant's mental health condition. It was crucial for the court to consider how the mental health issues influenced the defendant's actions and whether they should reduce the culpability or the severity of the punishment.

The court, in its judgment, found that while the defendant's mental health issues were significant, they did not absolve the defendant of responsibility for the crime. The court acknowledged the defendant's struggles but concluded that these did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence. The court held that the crime's gravity required a sentence that reflected its seriousness, despite the mitigating circumstances. The court sentenced the defendant to a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, to expire on 7 November 2020, with a total term of 3 years and 9 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, to date from 8 May 2018 and expire on 7 November 2020, with a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months. The total term of the sentence is 3 years and 9 months.

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.