Legal Research
Cases
R v Feilo

R v Feilo

Case [2025] NSWDC 446 30 October 2025

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Feilo
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 446
Hearing Date(s):	17 October 2025
Date of Orders:	30 October 2025
Decision Date:	30 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Intensive Correction Order imposed. For orders see [88]-[93]
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others – Aggregate sentence – Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35 Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185 BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Somba v R [2012] NSWCCA 214 TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Vaeluagomatagy Feilo (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (The Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr R Baldeo (the offender) Ms E Blizard; Mr A Isaacs (the Crown) Solicitors: Mr K Kyriacou (the offender) Ms D Horsley (the Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/00185423
Publication Restriction:	Nil. There is however a non-publication order regarding the name of the co-accused who is referred to as MS

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender who was born in 2002 has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences:-
Count 1 – Offence pursuant to s13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW) (“the CDPVA”) of stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment and/or $5,500 fine and there is no standard non-parole period prescribed.
Count 2 – Offence pursuant to s59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“the CA”) of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others. The maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is 7 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period prescribed.
The offences occurred on 14 April 2021, and the offender was arrested on 28 June 2021. He was in custody for a period of 5 months and 20 days (173 days) until granted conditional bail on 17 December 2021. The offender was in custody for a period of 6 months and 7 days (200 days) for the period 1 June 2021 to 17 December 2021 when he was bail refused in relation to other matters. When eventually sentenced in respect of that matter (H81363954) the time spent in custody in relation to the index offences was taken into account by the sentencing judge. I refer to that below.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 17…

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 Feilo

Details

AGLC: R v Feilo [2025] NSWDC 446
Case: [2025] NSWDC 446
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Feilo, was convicted of stalking and intimidating a woman with the intention of causing her fear of physical harm, as well as assaulting her and causing actual bodily harm in the company of others. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative nature of the offences warranted an aggregate sentence and, if so, what form that sentence should take, including the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO). The court also had to consider the appropriate length and conditions of the ICO.

In determining the sentence, the court recognised the cumulative effect of the defendant's actions and the need for a sentence that would address the defendant's offending behaviour and provide for community protection. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and deterrence in sentencing decisions. The court concluded that an ICO was appropriate due to the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the need for a structured, community-based sentence that would include supervision and support services. The court imposed an ICO for a period of 12 months, with specific conditions designed to address the defendant's offending behaviour and promote his rehabilitation.

The court found that the defendant's stalking and intimidation behaviour, coupled with the assault in the company of others, demonstrated a significant level of aggression and a disregard for the victim's safety and well-being. The court considered the defendant's previous convictions and the need for a sentence that would deter him from future offending. The imposition of an ICO was seen as a way to balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for the defendant to address underlying issues and reintegrate into the community. The court outlined the specific conditions of the ICO, which included participation in anger management programs, regular reporting to a corrections officer, and restrictions on contact with the victim.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of an ICO for a period of 12 months, with specific conditions aimed at promoting the defendant's rehabilitation and ensuring community protection. The court also ordered the defendant to participate in various programs and services designed to address his offending behaviour and support his reintegration into the community. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with the conditions of the ICO and the potential consequences of non-compliance. The orders reflected the court's determination to impose a sentence that would address the defendant's offending behaviour, promote his rehabilitation, and provide for community protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

Intensive Correction Order imposed. For orders see [88]-[93]

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 Feilo [2025] NSWDC 446

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

TH v The King [2025] NSWCCA 121
Citation 1 (Para 7)

…pport. As the offender was 19 years of age at the time of the offending, his youth was a significant matter to take into account, referring to TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 at [94] and KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [26].…
Mandranis v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 97
Citation 2 (Para 10)

…managed in the community rather than by way of a custodial sentence. In accordance with the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97, I may take into account the offender’s remand custody, and applying principles of totality may take that into account notwithstanding that Judge Grant a…
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Citation 3

…2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Somba v R [2012] NSWCCA 214 TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 4 (Para 5)

…owledged the content of the report of Dr Dilati dated 23 August 2025 and the application of the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 and DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194. The Crown referred to the offender’s difficult childhood in a “home environment filled…
Somba v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 214
Citation 5 (Para 3)

…fending where there is a joint-criminal enterprise the Court must assess the degree of participation of the offender. The Crown referred to Somba v R [2012] NSWCCA 214 where Hall J had held that it was necessary to refer to and take into account particular conduct of each participant in a joint-criminal enterprise w…
KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32
Citation 6 (Para 3)

…terprise with a view to determine the level of culpability for which each must be sentenced. The Crown referred to the judgment of Latham J in KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 with respect to the distinction between the offender's responsibility for criminal conduct and his moral culpability for the offending.…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 7 (Para 5)

…ust 2025 and the application of the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 and DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194. The Crown referred to the offender’s difficult childhood in a “home environment filled with anger and conflict” where he was subjected to domestic vio…
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Citation 8 (Para 8)

…In BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Hodgson JA, having referred to KT v R, said as follows: “4 First, statements that, in relation to young offenders, principles of retribution may be of less significance and considerations of rehabilitation may be of more significance, may tend to obscure the point…
Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
Citation 9 (Para 11)

…nsel referred to Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185 at [65] to submit there could be rehabilitation without confession. This was approved in Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35 at [48].…
Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185
Citation 10 (Para 11)

…SAR demonstrated that the offender had insight into his offending conduct and his prospects for rehabilitation. Counsel referred to Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185 at [65] to submit there could be rehabilitation without confession. This was approved in Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35 at [48].…
TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158
Citation 11 (Para 8)

…to the offending, this may be seen as mitigating culpability and thus as reducing what is suggested by considerations of retribution: see TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158 at [33] – [36]. 5 Second, while I agree with the statements in KT at [26] that the weight to be given to considerations relevant to a person’s youth dimi…
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Citation 12 (Para 7)

…f age at the time of the offending, his youth was a significant matter to take into account, referring to TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 at [94] and KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 at [26].…
R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90
Citation 13 (Para 43)

…66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28].…
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Citation 14 (Para 7)

…In Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41, Howie J stated at [27]:- “There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality of criminality: can the sentence for one offence comprehen…
R v E [2006] NSWCCA 305
Citation 15 (Para 8)

…and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old…
R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
Citation 16 (Para 51)

…t [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28].…
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37
Citation 17 (Para 8)

…Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old for a most serious crime. 6 Third, I do not think courts should be over…
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Citation 18 (Para 254)

…uently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 19 (Para 254)

…e offender's moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [2…
R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7
Citation 20 (Para 23)

…may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28].…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 21 (Para 254)

…culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearso…
[2025] NSWCCA 165 [2025] NSWCCA 165
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…he purposes of sentencing set out in s3A of the CSPA was recently explained by Weinstein J (with whom Wright and Sweeney JJ agreed) in YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165 at [59] to [68]. The reduction in this offender’s moral culpability must therefore be given “full weight” in the sentencing synthesis (per Bugmy at [44]). It…
[2005] 2 NZLR 526 [2005] 2 NZLR 526
Citation 23 (Para 8)

…velop progressively during adolescence and early adulthood, and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, yout…

Legislation Cited

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)