R v Holland - [2022] NSWDC 118

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Holland [2022] NSWDC 118
Hearing dates: 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 28 March 2022
Decision date: 28 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
Orders at [52] – [54]

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – wound person intend to cause grievous bodily harm – domestic violence offence – blight on civil society – repeat domestic violence offender – wound to neck – use of a weapon – children witness to immediate aftermath – victim had a broken leg – vulnerable victim – no contrition – bleak prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
DPP v Tennison [2020] VCA 343
McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106
Morris v R [2007] NSWCCA 127
Ollis v R [2011] NSWCCA 155
Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76
R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v Kelso [2020] NSWDC 157
R v Seymour [2012] NSWSC 1010
R v Tangi (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 547
R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Troy Anthony Holland
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Paul Kerr (Crown)
Mr Irving Wallach (Offender)
Solicitors:
Mr Aaron Thomas (Crown)
Mr Timothy Hemsley (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/00355816
Publication restriction: Nil

Ex Tempore Judgment

Introduction

Troy Anthony Holland was listed for trial on 10 November 2021. He faced an indictment alleging that on 11 December 2020 in Lavington he did break and enter in the dwelling house of Shannon Polmear and committed a serious indictable offence, namely, intimidation, in circumstances of special aggravation, namely, that he did intentionally wound Shannon Polmear contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act1900.
The indictment alleged a second count in the alternative, that on the same date and place he did wound Shannon Polmear with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.
On the day the matter was listed for trial, the offender pleaded not guilty to count 1 and guilty to count 2, the alternative count. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of seven years. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are important guides in the assessment of sentence. A sentencing judge should steer by the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period but not aim for it.

Plea of Guilty

Contrary to Mr Wallach’s submission, asserting that the offender pleaded guilty on 10 September 2021, Court records indicate that in fact on that date he entered a plea of not guilty. He pleaded guilty on arraignment on 10 November 2022. The offender pleaded guilty to the alternative count on the day of his trial. The relevant discount for the plea is 5% in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, pursuant…

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 Holland

Details

AGLC: R v Holland [2022] NSWDC 118
Case: [2022] NSWDC 118
Decision Date: 28 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Holland, was convicted of a domestic violence offence involving the wounding of a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions. The incident in question involved the use of a weapon to inflict a wound on the victim's neck, which occurred in the presence of the couple's children. The victim also had a broken leg at the time of the assault, and was considered a vulnerable individual. Holland showed no remorse for the crime, and the court was presented with evidence suggesting that the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation were not promising.

The court was required to consider a number of legal issues in determining the appropriate sentence. One key issue was the nature and severity of the offence, which involved the use of a weapon and inflicted serious injury on the victim. The court also had to take into account the fact that the offence was committed in the context of domestic violence, and that it had a significant impact on the victim and the community. Furthermore, the court considered the defendant's lack of remorse, as well as the fact that he was a repeat offender with a history of domestic violence. The court was also required to consider the impact of the crime on the children who witnessed the immediate aftermath of the assault.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community from further harm. The court emphasised the seriousness of domestic violence as a blight on civil society, and noted that repeat offenders like Holland posed a significant risk to vulnerable individuals. The court also took into account the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, as well as his bleak prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, with a term to be determined by the court. The court also made orders for the defendant to undergo treatment for his violent tendencies, and to participate in programs designed to address his underlying issues.

The court's final orders, as outlined in paragraphs [52] to [54] of the judgment, included a sentence of imprisonment for the defendant, as well as orders for the defendant to participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs. The court also made orders for the defendant to have no contact with the victim, and to comply with any other conditions deemed necessary by the court. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community from further harm, and of holding the defendant accountable for his actions. The court also noted the need to provide support to the victim, and to work towards preventing future incidents of domestic violence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [52] – [54]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Holland [2022] NSWDC 118
Hearing dates:	28 March 2022
Date of orders:	28 March 2022
Decision date:	28 March 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	Orders at [52] – [54]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – wound person intend to cause grievous bodily harm – domestic violence offence – blight on civil society – repeat domestic violence offender – wound to neck – use of a weapon – children witness to immediate aftermath – victim had a broken leg – vulnerable victim – no contrition – bleak prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP v Tennison [2020] VCA 343 McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106 Morris v R [2007] NSWCCA 127 Ollis v R [2011] NSWCCA 155 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116 RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76 R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 R v Kelso [2020] NSWDC 157 R v Seymour [2012] NSWSC 1010 R v Tangi (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 547 R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Troy Anthony Holland
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Paul Kerr (Crown) Mr Irving Wallach (Offender) Solicitors: Mr Aaron Thomas (Crown) Mr Timothy Hemsley (Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/00355816
Publication restriction:	Nil