R v Frederick Schaaf
[2025] NSWDC 445
•30 October 2025
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | R v Frederick Schaaf |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2025] NSWDC 445 |
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 and Community Correction Order imposed. For orders see [65] |
Catchwords: | SENTENCE – Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others – Intensive Correction Order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 |
Category: | Sentence |
Parties: | Frederick Schaaf (the offender) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2021/00125074 |
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 1993 is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences for which he has pleaded guilty:-
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.
Following his arrest on 5 May 2021 the offender spent 1 year, 4 months and 2 days in custody (490 days).
The sentence hearing
The sentence hearing took place on 17 October 2025. The Crown Sentence Summary became Exhibit A and included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.
On or about 14 April 2021, a co-accused MS organised for a supply of 2 kilograms of cocaine to another drug dealer referred to as “Person A”. Person A took the 2 kilograms of cocaine and handed over a block of paper of $50 notes on one end and otherwise contained blank paper instead of $660,000. MS held Stuart MacGill (“the victim”) responsible for Person A’s theft of the drugs because he had introduced MS to Person A. On 14 April 2021, MS met with the victim telling him that the victim needed to pay money to cover the theft or provide information as to the whereabouts of Person A. The victim denied responsibility for the debt left by Person A’s theft.
The conduct constituting the two offences commenced at 5:50 p.m. on 14 April 2021 when the co-offender was tasked to drive from his home in the Sutherland area to Cremorne with the intention of intimidating the victim into providing money or information about the whereabouts of Person A. The offender searched for the victim’s address in his phone, and afterwards he and the co-offender Richard Schaaf left Caringbah arriving at Cremorne just before 7 p.m.
At about 6:24 p.m. another co-offender, Feilo went to Bunnings at Rouse Hill and purchased a pair of long handled garden shears, three sets of gloves, cable ties and rope. The garden shears were later found in the offender’s car. Feilo then travelled from Rouse Hill to Bringelly arriving there at 7:20 p.m.
Throughout the afternoon and after the second meeting with the victim, MS waited outside the victim’s apartment building in Cremorne in his car. At about 7:00 p.m. the victim escaped his apartment in the boot of another resident’s car, met with friends and went to a friend’s house nearby. The victim was then lured back to his apartment by MS just before 8:00 p.m. under the guise of looking at photographs to identify Person A. The victim met MS on a street close by his home and MS took his phone and said, “The big guys are here to see you”. The victim kept walking towards his home and came across the co-offender Richard Schaaf who was standing in the street outside a car. The co-offender said to the victim, “I don’t want to hurt you, we know you have nothing to do with it, we just want to talk to you, get in the car”. The victim resisted and the co-offender said, “Don’t make it difficult” and placed his hand on his own waist.
It is an agreed fact that the victim got in the car because he thought that gesture meant that the co-offender had a firearm. The victim did not see a firearm, nor did he communicate his belief to either the offender or co-offender and the Crown does not contend that the offender intended to imply possession of a firearm. Nor does the Crown contend that either offender or co-offender had a firearm. Nor does the Crown contend that either offender or co-offender actually knew or were reckless to the victim’s lack of consent to enter the car.
The victim got in the car and the co-offender sat next to him. The co-offender said, “We’ve got a problem because they (a reference to the drugs) were mine”. However it is not contended that the co-offender was actually involved in the failed cocaine deal or that the drugs in fact belonged to the co-offender.
The victim said that the drug deal had nothing to do with him. The co-offender asked the victim about the whereabouts of Person A and the victim told him that he had been trying to contact Person A all day without success.
The offender drove the car from Cremorne to Bringelly arriving at about 9:00 p.m. The car pulled over and the co-offender Feilo got in the car with a bag containing the garden shears. Feilo was wearing a balaclava and sat in the front passenger seat. It is an agreed fact that the intimidation commenced at the time that Feilo entered the car.
The car was driven to premises at Bringelly, being an unoccupied house with a driveway which led to a shed. When they arrived the offender and co-offenders got out of the car leaving the victim in the car for about 10 minutes. The victim was then told to go to the shed, photos of which are contained in Exhibit A. The co-offenders demanded proof that the victim was not wearing “a wire” and searched the victim which caused him to be intimidated. The garden shears were placed on the floor near the victim, and the co-offender, Richard Schaaf slapped the victim across the face causing him to fall down. Richard Schaaf asked the victim again about the whereabouts of Person A and was told that he didn’t know where he was. Richard Schaaf then said, “They want me to take your fingers” and said they needed $150,000 and asked where he would get it from and how long it would take. The co-offender then asked for the victim’s phone which was provided.
The co-offenders Richard Schaaf and Feilo punched the victim multiple times in the head. In this assault the victim suffered a cut lip. The co-offender Richard Schaaf then said it was enough, and the offender then asked the victim, “Are you ok?”, and handed the victim his glasses which he had dropped.
The co-offenders and victim then returned to the car, and the offender drove to Belmore arriving at 10:30 p.m. The co-offender Richard Schaaf then had a conversation with the victim by the side of the road telling him that someone would provide a phone to him the following morning and that he should not leave home. The victim then took a taxi back to his home and the next day told his partner what had happened. The matter was reported by way of formal report to police on 20 April 2021.
Exhibit A also included the NSW Police Force report of convictions relating to the offender which commenced in 2012 with a number of traffic convictions for which he was fined, and in the same year offences of receive/dispose stolen property for which he was given a suspended prison sentence for 6 months and an offence of make/furnish a statement which is false/misleading for which he was fined. In 2013 there were further traffic offences for which a community service order was imposed together with a fine, and in 2014 an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 7 months and an offence of steal from the person, for which a prison sentence of 4 months to be served concurrently, was imposed.
In 2015 the offender was convicted of a common assault offence for which he was sentenced on appeal to imprisonment for 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 months. In 2017 the offender was convicted of a supply prohibited drug offence for which he was placed on a s9 bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months and in 2022 he was convicted of an offence of assault for which he was sentenced by way of an Intensive Correction Order (“ICO”) for a period of 10 months.
Exhibit A also included his custody records and a bail chronology.
The offender’s evidence
The offender tendered a bundle of documents which became Exhibit 1.1 to 1.4. Exhibit 1.1 is an affidavit sworn by Ms B Fifita on 17 October 2025 who is the mother of the offender and co-offender Richard Schaaf. She deposed to the family history in which the offender, as the middle of 5 children was exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by her husband towards the deponent and the offender which was alcohol fuelled and regular. She deposed that their homelife was difficult and both the offender and his brother were exposed to and experimented with drugs from an early age and exposed to alcohol abuse at home and violence in the community.
The deponent developed a number of health issues including severe chronic diabetes which requires regular monitoring and has suffered a heart attack and a kidney infection. She deposed that the offender has assisted her with transportation to her medical appointments and she remains in daily contact with him.
In 2009 the offender witnessed an attack on his brother and co-offender, Richard Schaaf when he was attacked by a group of 7 boys and stabbed four times in the stomach. Richard had told the offender to run home and get help, which he did, but which led to admonishment by his father for leaving his brother “to die”, for which he felt guilt. This affected him both mentally and physically and he became depressed. He completed year 12 at school.
Since his release to bail Ms Fifita had observed positive changes, in what she described as a “great transformation of the offender. He has become a father, and is more focused, responsible and determined to be a better man.”
She deposed that she has encouraged and provided support for her two sons to ensure that they do not offend again.
Exhibit 1.2 is an affidavit affirmed by the offender’s partner setting out their relationship history. They had been together since November 2020 and have a daughter born in February 2024. Ms Masih deposed to dental issues the offender experienced whilst on remand in custody as well as the onerous conditions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions. That included long periods of lockdowns and no physical visits. Following his release on bail on 6 September 2022, the offender was able to obtain the necessary dental treatment. The deponent confirmed the family history deposed to by the offender’s mother and his exposure to family violence, alcohol and drug abuse. She also deposed to his strict bail conditions, the constant media publicity and prolonged delay in these criminal proceedings which have impacted upon the offender and herself immensely. The offender has been working in the family concreting business since being on bail and has expressed his regret for his offending and is doing his best to stay out of trouble. She expressed her ongoing support to the offender to ensure that he stays out of trouble with the law.
Exhibit 1.4 is a letter from the offender dated 15 October 2025 expressing his apology to the victim for any pain and suffering that he caused him and to say sorry to the Court, the community and everyone affected by his actions, which he described as “very stupid”.
The offender, since becoming a father to his 18 month old daughter, is conscious about ensuring that he stays out of trouble and to ensure that he never goes back to prison. He states that he has tried his best to be a better person and his hardest to abide by the law. He expressed a desire to be “a good citizen, a good father and a good partner”.
The Crown submissions
The Crown relied on a written and detailed outline of submissions setting out the procedural history and noting that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount in respect of Count 1 and a 5% discount in relation to Count 2 for his pleas of guilty.
The Crown noted that the offender had spent 490 days in pre-sentence custody which was entirely referable to the index offending. The start date for any sentence of imprisonment therefore would be 14 June 2024.
The Crown submitted that in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending 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 held that it was necessary to refer to and take into account the particular conduct of each participant in a joint-criminal enterprise with a view to determine the level of culpability to 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.
The Crown submitted the following features were relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness of the offences:-
(a)The offences were not spontaneous and involved a significant degree of planning and organisation, as evidenced by:
(i)The surveillance of the victim by co-accused MS and attendance at his personal residence by the offender and Richard Schaaf.
(ii)The use of a ruse to lure the victim back to his home where Richard Schaaf and the offender were waiting.
(iii)The purchase by Feilo of items for use or possible use in the offending, namely a pair of long handled garden shears, three sets of gloves, cable ties and rope.
(iv)The victim’s phone was taken by MS from him to isolate him and prevent him from calling for help.
(v)Prior arrangements had been made for the offender and Richard Schaaf to pick up Feilo in Bringelly, and on the way to Robinson Road, Bringelly.
(vi)Feilo was wearing a balaclava when he entered the car.
(vii)The victim was transported to an isolated and semi-rural property, approximately 70kms from his home.
(b)Regarding the intimidation:
(i)The victim was in the presence of three unknown males, without means of escape or contacting police or other parties for assistance.
(ii)The victim was taken to an unoccupied property and directed to go with the offenders to a dilapidated shed type structure.
(iii)On entering the shed, the offenders demanded proof the victim was not wearing a wire and searched him. This caused him to be intimidated.
(iv)Feilo put the garden shears on the floor near the victim.
(c)Regarding the AOABH:
(i)Extent and nature of the injuries:
The victim suffered a cut lip as a result of the assault.
(ii)Degree of violence:
Richard Schaaf commenced the conduct comprising the assault by slapping the victim across the face and causing him to fall down.
Richard Schaaf and Feilo punched the victim multiple times to the head. The assault ended when Richard Schaaf said words to the effect that “That’s enough”.
(iii)Intention of the offenders:
The offenders intentionally caused harm to the victim. The offenders were motivated by obtaining information as to the location of Person A, or $150,000 from the victim.
The Crown submitted the following matters should be taken into account in assessing the role of Frederick Schaaf in the offending:-
(a)The offender was the driver: He drove himself and Richard Schaaf to Cremorne to collect the victim, and then to Bringelly where the offending occurred. The offender also drove the offenders and the victim to Belmore where the victim was dropped off.
(b)The offender’s involvement in the Intimidation of the victim by was by virtue of his presence.
(c)The offender did not assault the victim.
(d)At the end of the assault, the offender asked the victim: “Are you okay” and handed the victim his glasses.
The Crown submitted that it was an aggravating factor pursuant to s21A(2)(c) of the CSPA that the offence involved the threatened use of a weapon, namely the garden shears.
The Crown submitted that the offender's criminal history disentitled him to leniency.
The Crown submitted that general deterrence was applicable in sentencing to deter the general public from committing such offences and to recognise the harm done to the victim. Specific deterrence was also applicable to ensure that the offender was adequately punished for the offence and to hold him accountable for his actions. The Crown accepted, however, that the threshold in s5 of the CSPA had been crossed and that any sentence may be served in the community, by the imposition of an ICO.
In his oral submissions, and responding to the written submissions of the offender, the Crown submitted that there was some planning involved in the offending conduct, and further that the offending did not occur at a suburban street but rather in a semi-rural location.
The Crown accepted the offender had a background of childhood disadvantage but, like its submissions regarding Richard Schaaf, submitted that he had developed an understanding of responsibilities in his life, relying on TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 at [77] to [79].
In relation to the question of delay in sentencing, the Crown referred to the prosecution of the victim which had emerged during the investigations that followed this offence. The victim had first stood trial on 18 November 2024, however the jury in that trial were discharged on 24 November 2024. His second trial concluded on 11 March 2025. The Crown submitted that the offender had provided consent for the victim’s trial to proceed and that it was a function of the criminal justice system.
With respect to extra-curial punishment by way of media coverage, the Crown referred to a 12 minute podcast in which at no time was the offender named. It was submitted the evidence concerning media coverage here did not reach the threshold but rather principles of open justice were met subject to any non-publication order made.
With respect to the assessment of objective seriousness of the offending, the Crown conceded that the role of this offender was less culpable than that of his co-offenders.
The offender’s submissions
Counsel for the offender relied on a thorough and detailed written outline of submissions noting that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount for Count 1 and a 5% discount for Count 2. Further, counsel submitted the entering of the plea assisted the proper administration of justice, saved valuable court time and allowed the victim to have certainty over these proceedings.
In relation to the assessment of objective seriousness of the offending, it was not conceded that the offending involved a significant degree of planning and organisation. The Crown was unable to prove to any standard that this offender had any contact with MS in any way nor was he involved in any ruse to lure the victim back to his home. The Crown was unable to prove that MS unlawfully took the victim’s phone to prevent him from calling for help nor was the victim “isolated” in a property rather, statements relied on by the Crown suggested neighbours had heard commotion at the relevant time. It was submitted to be a property on “a suburban street surrounded by other homes”.
Counsel submitted that the Court should not accept the Crown’s submission that the victim did not have any means of contacting police or other parties for assistance. However the offender’s role in the JCE was only that of driver and it was noted that the Crown accepted that the intimidation of the victim only commenced when Feilo entered the car in a balaclava. This offender did not assault the victim, however he was “in company” of those that did. At the conclusion of what counsel characterised as a minor assault, this offender asked the victim, “Are you ok?” whilst handing him back his glasses.
Counsel submitted that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 were enlivened due to the offender’s childhood exposure to domestic violence, abandonment, lack of stability and education, cultural dispossession and social exclusion. Further, such disadvantage should be given full weight in determining the sentence. Counsel referred to DR v R [2022] NSWCCA 151 at [37] where the Court summarised the two central ways that the principles apply, namely:-
“i. the existence of a causal link between an offender’s disadvantaged background and the offending will inevitably support a finding that such offender’s moral culpability is reduced; and
ii. even where there is no such causal link, an offender’s disadvantaged background remains a factor which must be given full weight in the determination of an appropriate sentence.”
Counsel referred to the well known principles regarding delay in sentencing enunciated by Street CJ in R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 at 519. Counsel submitted that the delay here fell squarely on the NSW Police. Counsel submitted that the Crown had not fairly provided an accurate history of delay but rather that the charging of the victim with serious drug related offences arose from the investigation of these matters. The delay was therefore due to circumstances outside the offender’s control. Further, although the trial was due to commence on 11 August 2025 several weeks were taken up with pre-trial rulings sought by the Crown due to the late service of evidentiary material. This offender did not participate in those arguments.
Counsel referred to the progress the offender has made in his rehabilitation and to the genuine remorse outlined in his letter of apology. He had also for a period of 3 years or more been subject to onerous bail conditions which had caused restrictions on his liberty. Those conditions were imposed for a charge which was subsequently withdrawn.
With respect to the media coverage of the arrest and charging of the offenders, counsel noted that this offender and others had been routinely described as “kidnappers”. It was submitted that the adverse media coverage ranged across thousands of internet articles as well as mainstream media, naming and depicting the offender in sensationalised television pieces and lengthy podcast interviews.
Counsel submitted that the s5 threshold in the CSPA had not been crossed and that a community based order would be appropriate considering his role, the delay, his lengthy period on bail and the offender’s demonstrated rehabilitation as well as adverse media reporting.
In his oral submissions, learned counsel rehearsed his written submissions noting that the saving in court time caused by the offender’s pleas amounted to assistance recognised by s22A of the CSPA.
Counsel rehearsed his submissions regarding the assessment of objective seriousness, submitting that the offences did not involve any significant planning. The inference advocated by the Crown was not the only inference available in the offending which involved the intimidation and assault of a drug dealer. This offender has used his own phone and vehicle and did not disguise himself at all. He was not involved in the personal attack on the victim, but he was present during what was characterised as a minor assault. This took place over a short period of time.
Counsel rehearsed his submissions regarding the offender’s background of deprivation and the delay in sentencing. He conceded that the offender was not being sentenced for a stale crime and had not been in a state of uncertainty so as to engage the principle in Todd v R.
Counsel rehearsed his submissions regarding the offender’s time in custody and the fact that he had not committed further offences which would warrant a community based sentence. Whilst serious, these offences could have been dealt with in the Local Court in 2021. Whilst the media coverage was not so significant as to warrant mitigation it could also be factored into account. That media coverage was identified as including three items principally focused on the victim, being a Channel 9 program broadcast on 21 June 2021, a Channel 7 program broadcast on 19 June 2022 and a podcast released on 15 July 2025.
Determination
Section 3A of the CSPA sets out the purposes of sentencing as follows:
“3A The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows:
(a) To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) To prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) To protect the community from the offender,
(d) To promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) To make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) To denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) To recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.”
In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending in Count 1, I have had regard to the circumstances in which the offending arose, which involved a drug rip off in which MS sought to obtain information as to the location of Person A or demand money from him. Whilst there was clearly planning involved in what occurred, a clear inference arises that the planning was not carried out by the offender who was the driver of the vehicle. He drove his brother Richard Schaaf to Cremorne to collect the victim and then drove to Bringelly with Richard Schaff and the victim in the backseat of the vehicle. There they collected the co-offender Feilo, who was wearing a balaclava and at that time the intimidation commenced. The offender’s role in the intimidation is therefore that of driver and his presence both in the vehicle and at Bringelly, and also in driving the victim to Belmore. I therefore find that the objective seriousness of his offending in Count 1 was below the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s7(1) of the CDPVA.
The objective seriousness of the offending in Count 2 must be assessed with reference only to the presence of the offender at the time when the assault took place. His conduct was somewhat ameliorated by asking the victim after the assault, “Are you ok?” and handing him back his glasses which had fallen to the ground. This offending fell in the low range for an offence pursuant to s59(2) of the CA.
It was an aggravating factor to the offence in Count 2 that the offence involved the threatened use of a weapon, namely the garden shears, pursuant to s21A(2)(c) of the CSPA.
The offender has a poor criminal history which disentitles him to any leniency in sentencing.
I have had regard to the maximum penalties prescribed of 5 years imprisonment for the offence pursuant so 13(1) of the CDPVA and 7 years imprisonment for the offence pursuant to s59(2) of the CA. The maximum penalties reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards such criminal conduct and provides a guidepost in the sentencing process for each offence.
General deterrence is also important in sentencing for such offences. A clear message must be sent to like-minded members of the community that Parliament has prescribed lengthy maximum prison sentences and that the Courts will impose condign punishment in appropriate cases. Specific deterrence is also important given the offender’s criminal history of convictions. He must understand that if he were to commit further offences, he would be subject to increasingly severe penalties.
I have taken into account the offender’s pleas of guilty which entitled him to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of Count 1 and a 5% discount in respect of Count 2. The pleas also demonstrate some remorse, and I accept the evidence of his mother and from his own letter of apology that the offender has expressed genuine remorse for his offending conduct.
Whilst there was some delay in the investigation of what was a complex matter and which necessitated the trial and subsequent sentencing of the victim for drug related offending, I do not find that the delay caused in sentencing this offender is to be taken into account as a mitigating factor. His counsel conceded that he was not being sentenced for a stale crime and had not been in a state of uncertainty so as to engage the relevant principles. Nor do I find that he has suffered extra-curial punishment by reference to media reporting of these proceedings. Such reporting focused on the identity of the victim rather than the offender and co-offenders and are a necessary adjunct of our system of open justice.
I accept that the offender suffered a childhood and adolescence of disadvantage so as to engage the principles Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37. In that case, the High Court of Australia held as follows:-
1. The circumstances that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence because his/her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way [40].
2. The effects of profound deprivation do not diminish over time and repeated offending and should be given full weight in determining the sentence in every case [42-44].
3. A background of that kind may leave a mark on a person throughout life and compromise a person’s capacity to mature and learn from experience [43].
The application of these principles, and their impact in diminishing the offender’s moral culpability for the offending and how that further impacts the 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]).
Notwithstanding that the offender had some short periods of stability in his life that is not reflected in his history of criminal convictions and thus the Bugmy principles must be given full effect so as to reduce significantly the offender’s moral culpability for his offending. This inevitably leads to a diminished impact of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation in any sentence to be imposed.
The offender spent 490 days in pre-sentence custody before being released to bail having been charged with a much more serious offence carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. When released he was subject to onerous bail conditions with which he has complied for a period of over 3 years. Further, he has not offended during that period and has progressed his rehabilitation by taking responsibility for his own conduct. These are significant matters to take into account on sentence.
With respect to Count 1 on the Indictment, I find that the threshold in s5 of the CSPA has been crossed and that no sentence other than imprisonment is warranted given the objective seriousness of the offending notwithstanding that this offender’s role was the least serious of the three co-offenders being sentenced. However, having regard to the 490 days already spent in custody that period would adequately cover any non-parole period imposed. In accordance with the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 and having regard to the 25% utilitarian discount on sentence, I intend to impose an ICO for a period of 9 months for this offence. In so finding, I have taken into account community safety as a paramount consideration pursuant to s66 of the CSPA and, together with the other purposes of sentencing in s3A as set out above, I find this sentence will best address this offender’s risk of reoffending.
In respect of the offence in Count 2, I find that the threshold in s5 of the CSPA has not been crossed. I intend to convict the offender of this offence and impose a Community Correction Order pursuant to s8(1) of the CSPA for a period of 11 months from today.
Orders
I hereby make the following orders:-
(1)You are convicted of Count 1, an offence pursuant to s13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW) of stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm. For that offence I impose, pursuant to s7(1) of the CSPA, an Intensive Correction Order for a period of 9 months commencing today.
(2)You must report to the Community Corrections Office at Miranda as soon as practicable but no later than 7 days from today.
(3)The standard conditions of the order apply:-
(a)You must not commit any offence; and
(b)You must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections officer.
(4)The following additional conditions apply:-
(a)That you perform community service work for 100 hours.
(5)I am satisfied pursuant to 17D(1)(a) of the CSPA that I have sufficient information before me to justify the making of the above Intensive Correction Order without obtaining an assessment report.
(6)If you fail to comply with the conditions of this order sanctions may be imposed by the Commissioner of Corrective Services or State Parole Authority. Those sanctions may include a formal warning, imposing more stringent conditions or it may include revocation of this order.
(7)If the order is revoked, you may be required to a serve all or some of the period of your sentence in full-time custody.
(8)In respect of Count 2, you are convicted. Pursuant to s8(1) of the CSPA, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, you are ordered to comply with a Community Correction Order for a period of 11 months commencing today.
(9)The standard conditions of the order apply:-
(a)You must not commit any offence; and
(b)You must submit to supervision by a Community Corrections officer.
(10)If you fail to comply with the conditions of this order, further action may be taken against you. This may require you to return to court to be re-sentenced.
(11)Finally, you are now directed to attend the court registry where a copy of this order will be explained and given to you.
**********
0
7
2