Sentenced to imprisonment. Set a non-parole period of 2 years and a balance of term of one year and 7 months
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Assault - Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm - Domestic violence - Disinhibited assault upon partner continuing when unconscious - Poor record - Sentence of custody -imprisonment
Cases Cited:
Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80] R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740. Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329,
Texts Cited:
(Marginal) Gneral Deterrence Does not Work and what it means for Sentencing. Mirko Bagaric and Theodore Alexander (2011) 35 Crim Law 269
Category:
Sentence
Parties:
The Crown Leo James Coffey
Representation:
Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service - The offender
File Number(s):
2011/133231
sentence
This is the sentence of Leo Coffey. Starting in late December 1995 Leo Coffey has been before the Local Court on twenty-three occasions for breach of an AVO or offences of physical violence. On three of those occasions police officers appear to have been his victim. On nineteen occasions it is likely his partner was the victim.
The facts and circumstances are all too familiar. Coffey has a long history of abusing alcohol and cannabis. He drinks and smokes daily, usually until he blacks out.
On 21 April 2011, he and his partner were both drinking heavily. He began to argue with her; he cannot even remember what started it. His predisposition to generalised violence is exacerbated when he is intoxicated. His violence in the early hours of 22 April 2011 was unremitting and brutal. He does not remember assaulting his partner Annette. When aroused by police later that morning, he saw the bedroom walls and floor were blood splattered. He remembers thinking "I hope I haven't done something stupid."
Not only was his conduct stupid, it was seriously criminal. Today he is to be held accountable for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to Annette.
As sentencing judge it falls to me to determine a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence before this Court, committed by this offender, harming this victim in the community of Brewarrina, see Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offence before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to the offender; that is called subjective matters. The starting point for these assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the evidence before the Court relating to the offence and to the offender. My fact finding task has been circumscribed in that the parties have tendered an agreed set of facts to which I shall shortly return. It…
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 Coffey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Coffey [2012] NSWDC 282
Case
[2012] NSWDC 282
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Coffey, the respondent was convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to his partner. The dispute involved the appropriate sentence for this crime, taking into account the nature of the assault, the respondent's history, and the circumstances of the incident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The court was required to consider various legal issues, including the gravity of the offence, the personal circumstances of the respondent, and the principles of sentencing for domestic violence-related crimes. The court also needed to determine an appropriate non-parole period and the total term of imprisonment, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, found that the assault was particularly serious due to its disinhibited nature and the fact that it continued even after the victim became unconscious. The court also noted the respondent's poor criminal record and the need for general deterrence. After weighing all relevant factors, the court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment, setting a non-parole period of two years and a balance of term of one year and seven months.
The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent be imprisoned for the term determined, with the non-parole period being two years. The balance of the sentence would be served on the terms of parole eligibility.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment. Set a non-parole period of 2 years and a balance of term of one year and 7 months