R v Frederick Schaaf - [2025] NSWDC 445

District Court

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) Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 DR v R [2022] NSWCCA 151 KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 Somba v R [2012] NSWCCA 214 TH v R [2025] NSWCCA 121 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Frederick Schaaf (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Terracini (the offender) Ms E Blizard; Mr A Isaacs (the Crown) Solicitors: Ms J Nguyen (the offender) Ms D Horsley (the Crown)
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…

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 Frederick Schaaf

Details

AGLC: R v Frederick Schaaf [2025] NSWDC 445
Case: [2025] NSWDC 445
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Frederick Schaaf, the defendant faced sentencing for a series of stalking and intimidation offences, culminating in an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in the company of others. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant had been charged with stalking and intimidating his former partner, which included repeated contact and threats. The situation escalated when the defendant assaulted the victim in the presence of others, causing actual bodily harm.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing approach for the defendant's conduct and the imposition of suitable orders to address the offending behaviour. The court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court also had to balance the protection of the community with the defendant's rights.

The court found that the defendant's conduct constituted a serious breach of community standards, warranting a substantial response. The court acknowledged the need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar behaviour. Given the defendant's previous offending history and the nature of the assault, the court deemed an Intensive Correction Order and a Community Correction Order appropriate. The court imposed these orders to ensure the defendant received the necessary support and supervision while also protecting the community.

The court issued an Intensive Correction Order and a Community Correction Order. These orders required the defendant to comply with specific conditions, including regular reporting to a supervising officer, participation in rehabilitation programs, and refraining from contact with the victim. The detailed terms of the orders are outlined in the court's sentencing remarks at [65].

Orders

Orders of the court

Intensive Correction Order and Community Correction Order imposed. For orders see [65]

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.