Legal Research
Cases
R v Grassi

R v Grassi

Case [2025] NSWDC 165 5 May 2025

Sentencing

Breach of Peace

Recklessly Cause Grievous Bodily Harm

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grassi [2025] NSWDC 165
Hearing dates: 21 March 2025
Date of orders: 5 May 2025
Decision date: 05 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
122 I make the following orders:
(1) The offender is convicted of the offence.
(2) The offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, commencing 19 June 2024 to expire on 18 June 2028. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years 7 months to expire on 18 January 2027. The earliest possible date of release is 18 January 2027.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – sentence following guilty verdict
CRIME — violent offences — recklessly cause grievous bodily harm — defence of self-defence rejected
SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — circumstances of offence – street violence – lack of regard for victim’s wellbeing — substantial harm, injury, loss or damage suffered by victim — traumatic brain injury suffered by victim
SENTENCING — mitigating factors — insignificant record of previous convictions — offender’s submissions on remorse not accepted by court – mental health – impact of upbringing — quasi custody
SENTENCING — subjective considerations on sentence — drug addiction

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571
DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 205 A Crim R 1
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Klajic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225
LA v R [2021] NSWCCA 136
Leigh Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 335
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Regina v Henry (guideline judgment on armed robbery) [1999] NSWCCA 111
Regina v Mitchell, Regina v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296: (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown, Matteo Grassi
Representation:
Crown: S Healy
Offender: G Goold

File Number(s): 2022/00167964

JUDGMENT

The offender is to be sentenced with respect to one offence following a trial in which the offender was found guilty.
The offence for which the offender is to be sentenced is as follows:

Count 1 – Causing grievous bodily harm to a person and being reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to a person contrary to s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with a standard non parole period of 4 years.

The maximum penalty for this offence acts as a sentencing guidepost of reference point. Section 54A(1) of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (CSPA), provides that the standard non parole period is that which is included in the table of provisions. Section 54A(2) provides that the standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period for an offence that…

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 Grassi

Details

AGLC: R v Grassi [2025] NSWDC 165
Case: [2025] NSWDC 165
Decision Date: 05 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grassi involved the defendant being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with recklessness. The matter was heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australia. The defendant was found guilty following a trial and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence. The central legal issue was to establish the appropriate punishment considering the nature of the crime and the relevant factors surrounding the incident. The court also had to consider any mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's lack of a significant criminal record, their submissions on remorse, mental health issues, their upbringing, and the impact of drug addiction. However, the court rejected the defence of self-defence and found the defendant's arguments on remorse unconvincing.

The court's reasoning involved a thorough examination of the circumstances of the offence, which was characterised as street violence with a clear disregard for the victim's wellbeing. The victim suffered a traumatic brain injury, indicating substantial harm and loss. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the lasting impact on the victim, which weighed heavily in favour of a significant custodial sentence. While the defendant's submissions on remorse and mental health were considered, they were not accepted as sufficient mitigating factors. The court determined that the defendant's history of drug addiction and their upbringing, though relevant, did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the crime. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and seven months, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.

The court's decision took into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The severity of the injury to the victim and the nature of the offence as street violence were key considerations. The defendant's lack of a significant criminal record and their personal circumstances were noted but did not sway the court's decision towards a lesser sentence. The orders made by the court included the conviction of the defendant and the imposition of a custodial sentence with specific non-parole conditions. The sentence was designed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation while ensuring public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

122 I make the following orders:

(1) The offender is convicted of the offence.

(2) The offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, commencing 19 June 2024 to expire on 18 June 2028. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years 7 months to expire on 18 January 2027. The earliest possible date of release is 18 January 2027.

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 Grassi [2025] NSWDC 165

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Kljaic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225
Citation 1 (Para 117)

…ition period, it was contended that a reduced percentage of 25% of this total time would be allowed. Mr Goold, in reply, contended, citing Klajic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225, that a percentage substantially greater than 25% would be available during the employment period.…
DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
Citation 2 (Para 108)

…ce of reduced weight being afforded to punishment and deterrence: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 at [74] to [76].…
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Citation 3 (Para 105)

…ategies. I accept the offender’s moral culpability is reduced by reason of these childhood experiences: Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571; Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169.…
La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136
Citation 4 (Para 118)

…As previously observed, ultimately it is a question of fact on the material available to the sentencing judge. In LA v R [2021] NSWCCA 136, the Court determined, in circumstances not dissimilar to the period in which the offender was in the transition program, that the sentencing judge was not in error in failing to…
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281
Citation 5 (Para 79)

…Mr Goold referred to the observations of Cavanagh J in Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281, where his Honour observed that there was no absolute rule that the seriousness of the injuries sustained was necessarily determinative of the objective seriousness. It was contended there was no evidence to conclude that the offe…
Leigh Brown v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 335
Citation 6 (Para 107)

…in the offender’s difficult childhood experiences, consistent with the opinion of Shannon Burgess: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; Leigh Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 335.…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 7 (Para 105)

…ping unhelpful coping strategies. I accept the offender’s moral culpability is reduced by reason of these childhood experiences: Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571; Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169.…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 8 (Para 108)

…reduced, with the consequence of reduced weight being afforded to punishment and deterrence: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 at [74] to [76].…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 9 (Para 70)

…r’s mental state indicated that he was entitled to consideration under the principles set out in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 205 A Crim R 1 at [177].…
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296
Citation 10 (Para 67)

…or in public places, particularly where committed by young men under the influence of alcohol or drugs, citing Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296. Further, the result of the offender’s conduct, being the seriousness of the injuries suffered, carry significant weight in determining the objective…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 11 (Para 6)

…he accused are to be taken into account on sentencing it is sufficient if those circumstances are proved on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at 281 at [27]; R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 at 369.…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 12 (Para 71)

…The Crown also noted that long-term use of alcohol or drugs is not a matter of mitigation: Regina v Henry (guideline judgment on armed robbery) [1999] NSWCCA 111. It was contended that, although the offender may have taken endone and alcohol on the night of the offence in order to “self-medicate” his mood disorder,…
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31
Citation 13 (Para 86)

…Whilst not seeking to offend the De Simoni principal ( R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383), there was clearly significant recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm. Indeed, that recklessness must have included, on the part of the offender, an appreciation of the significant risk of serious injury to the victim beca…

Legislation Cited

Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Grassi [2025] NSWDC 165
Hearing dates:	21 March 2025
Date of orders:	5 May 2025
Decision date:	05 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	122 I make the following orders: (1) The offender is convicted of the offence. (2) The offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, commencing 19 June 2024 to expire on 18 June 2028. I impose a non-parole period of 2 years 7 months to expire on 18 January 2027. The earliest possible date of release is 18 January 2027.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – sentence following guilty verdict CRIME — violent offences — recklessly cause grievous bodily harm — defence of self-defence rejected SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — circumstances of offence – street violence – lack of regard for victim’s wellbeing — substantial harm, injury, loss or damage suffered by victim — traumatic brain injury suffered by victim SENTENCING — mitigating factors — insignificant record of previous convictions — offender’s submissions on remorse not accepted by court – mental health – impact of upbringing — quasi custody SENTENCING — subjective considerations on sentence — drug addiction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571 DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 205 A Crim R 1 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 Klajic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225 LA v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 Leigh Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 335 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 Regina v Henry (guideline judgment on armed robbery) [1999] NSWCCA 111 Regina v Mitchell, Regina v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296: (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown, Matteo Grassi
Representation:	Crown: S Healy Offender: G Goold
File Number(s):	2022/00167964