R v Corak-Phan

Case [2021] NSWDC 3

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Corak-Phan [2021] NSWDC 3
Hearing dates: 17 December 2020
Decision date: 28 January 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial order. For orders see [57]

Catchwords:

Domestic violence offences; aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Raimondo Corak-Phan (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Johnson (Offender)

Solicitors:
A Trajkovski (Crown)
File Number(s): 19/386904
20/131802
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of the following matters to which he has entered pleas of guilty:

  1. H73919939/1 – Common assault (Claire Dawson), an offence pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.

  2. H73290820/1 – Common assault (Antoinetta Corak-Phan), an offence pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.

  1. The maximum penalty proscribed in respect of each offence is 2 years imprisonment. There is no Standard Non-Parole Period.

  2. There is a related offence subject to a certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (“CPA”), namely:

(3) H73919939/2 – knowingly contravene a prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (Claire Dawson), an offence pursuant to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

  1. The relevant maximum penalty in respect of that offence is the Local Court maximum of 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 50 penalty units.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 17 December 2020. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A, and included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.

  2. The first offence referred to above occurred on 9 December 2019. The victim and the offender were in a previous domestic relationship. They had separated and have one child. On 17 July 2019, an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) was granted on behalf of the victim. The order included a condition that the offender not approach the victim in any way.

  3. At 12.30am on Sunday 9 December 2019, a witness heard the victim shout, “Help. Someone please help me”. The witness observed the victim and the offender in a car park located at the rear of Bridge Road, Glebe. This is the conduct that breached the ADVO and is the subject of the related offence (Sequence 2).

  4. The victim ran to her motor vehicle, pursued by the offender. The offender punched the victim a number of times to the head and upper body area. This was the first index offence of common assault (Sequence 1). The offender then returned to his vehicle, but subsequently returned to the victim’s vehicle, where they engaged in a conversation. The offender then, again, went to his vehicle and then drove to a position where he immediately stopped, got out of the vehicle,…

Continue reading R v Corak-Phan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Corak-Phan [2021] NSWDC 3
Case
[2021] NSWDC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corak-Phan was convicted of domestic violence offences and appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and determined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. Corak-Phan was convicted of multiple counts of assault and one count of threatening to kill a former partner. The appellant had a history of violence against women, and the offences occurred over a short period of time. The County Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a total of four years and eight months, to be served as a full-time custodial sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the County Court had failed to properly take into account his prospects for rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing for domestic violence offences and the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The Court noted that domestic violence is a serious problem in Australian society, and that the courts must take a firm stance against such behaviour. The Court also noted that the appellant had a significant history of violence against women, and that the offences were committed over a short period of time. The Court concluded that the County Court had properly considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence imposed by the County Court. The Court noted that the appellant had a significant history of violence against women and that the offences were committed over a short period of time. The Court held that the County Court had properly considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of imprisonment for a total of four years and eight months, to be served as a full-time custodial sentence, was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order. For orders see [57]

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.