Legal Research
Cases
R v Jerome

R v Jerome

Case [2021] NSWDC 741 5 October 2021

Reckless Wounding

Contravene Prohibition/Restriction in AVO (Domestic)

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jerome [2021] NSWDC 741
Hearing dates: 5 October 2021
Date of orders: 5 October 2021
Decision date: 05 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Reckless wounding (DV) - Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – stabbing of partner - breach of apprehended domestic violence order- possible life threatening consequences- mentally ill offender- available defence of mental illness not taken up – no sworn evidence- contest about influence of drugs on a mental illness diagnosis- deprived background- special circumstances - role of State Parole Authority

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence order) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1987
EvidenceAct1995
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Cases Cited:
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
DPP(Cth) vDeLa Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA
Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Jahnessa Evelyn Sheree Jerome (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Kwan, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2020/00288396

sentence – ex tempore revised

Introduction

Jahnessa Jerome is a 28 year old Aboriginal woman. She was born and raised in Queensland. She had been in a relationship with her partner, the victim in this matter, for ten years, until she went into custody a year ago. The couple moved to New South Wales and obtained accommodation at a Department of Housing complex in Mangerton; sadly that Housing complex is well known to the Court.
On 9 January 2020 her partner had obtained an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) from the Local Court. Its conditions included that she not assault or threaten him. On 14 May 2020 the order was varied to include a condition that she must not approach or be in the company of the victim for at least 12 hours after drinking alcohol or taking illicit drugs.
On 6 October 2020, Ms Jerome breached that ADVO by twice stabbing her former partner. She entered guilty pleas in the Local Court. There are three matters for sentence today. There are two counts of reckless wounding; s 35(4) Crimes Act 1900; maximum penalty 7 years, standard non-parole period 3 years, and one…

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 Jerome

Details

AGLC: R v Jerome [2021] NSWDC 741
Case: [2021] NSWDC 741
Decision Date: 05 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Jerome, was charged with contravening a prohibition in an apprehended domestic violence order by recklessly wounding his partner, and with recklessly wounding his partner in circumstances that may have caused life-threatening injury. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Jerome's actions, considering various factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the personal background of the offender.

The court had to weigh multiple factors in sentencing Jerome. These included the serious nature of the offence, the breach of a domestic violence order, the potential for life-threatening consequences, and Jerome's mental health status. Notably, Jerome did not pursue a defence based on mental illness, and there was no sworn evidence presented on the matter. The court also considered the influence of drugs on Jerome's mental health and his deprived background as mitigating factors. Given the severity of the offence and the presence of special circumstances, the court had to balance these with the need for deterrence and public protection.

In delivering the sentence, the court found that an aggregate sentence of three years and four months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of two years. This decision reflected the gravity of Jerome's actions and the need to uphold the law while also considering his personal circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of the State Parole Authority's role in monitoring and reviewing Jerome's parole eligibility. The final orders of the court included the specified aggregate sentence and the non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.

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 Jerome [2021] NSWDC 741

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
Citation 1 (Para 19)

…The Court of Criminal Appeal on many occasions, and most recently in Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217, has said that considerable caution should be exercised by sentencing judges in relying on exculpatory material where there is a matter in dispute and where no evidence is given by an offender or other direct evidence is n…
Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…Deliberate disobedience of a court order is treated as serious and should be separately punished: Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142. But, care has to be taken when a breach of the order is also an aggravating feature in relation to the principal matters for sentence: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610. I wil…
Ryan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 209
Citation 3 (Para 23)

…There is nothing here to indicate that the offender was manipulating the psychiatrist. As Hamill J noted in Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 “it is not appropriate … to gainsay the diagnosis made by a psychologist and admitted without objection before the sentencing judge:” At [9].…
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Citation 4 (Para 10)

…pprehended Violence Order. Where such orders are made courts sometimes refer to a breach of them as a “breach of conditional liberty”: Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150. But here, as there was no conviction accompanying the ADVO, it could not be properly described as conditional liberty. It is quite clear however that su…
R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9
Citation 5 (Para 2)

…there is what as Basten JA described as so called expert reports which uncritically parrot claims by an offender who does not give evidence: JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9.…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 6 (Para 30)

…Ms Bird notes, by reference to Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38, that ultimately a sentencing decision in a matter such as this should attempt to vindicate the dignity of the victim of violence, to protect the victim and others from future offending and repetition of it.…
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Citation 7 (Para 22)

…lusions unsupported by factual detail but a judge must be careful. A judge also has to rely on professional opinions. As Allsop P said in Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88]:…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 8 (Para 14)

…. Content has to be given to the standard non‑parole period but a court, as the High Court made clear in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39, is not obliged to engage in a staged approach to sentencing. I have to identify all the factors that are relevant, discuss their significance and make a…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 9 (Para 31)

…Mr Kwan, who appears for the offender, properly refers me to the summary that was provided by Justice McClelland in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 and matters raised in Muldrock v The Queen, to which I have already referred.…
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…r not on oath and repeated second‑hand is put forward of evidence going to the assessment of the objective circumstances of the offence: R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353.…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 11 (Para 21)

…he matter taken into account must bring that matter to the attention of the judge and call evidence about it, The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54. A judge may not take into account the facts in a way that is adverse to the interests of an accused unless those facts establish beyond reasonable d…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 12 (Para 32)

…o her prospects for recidivism or rehabilitation. Her intoxication helps me understand why she was unable to exercise sound judgment: see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346.…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 13 (Para 32)

…recidivism or rehabilitation. Her intoxication helps me understand why she was unable to exercise sound judgment: see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346.…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 14

…v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018]…
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 5418
Citation 15 (Para 21)

…on sentence the party seeking to have the matter taken into account must bring that matter to the attention of the judge and call evidence about it, The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54. A judge may not take into account the facts in a way that is adverse to the interests of an accused unless those facts es…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 32)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Criminal Procedure Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 19)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 27)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jerome [2021] NSWDC 741
Hearing dates:	5 October 2021
Date of orders:	5 October 2021
Decision date:	05 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Reckless wounding (DV) - Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – stabbing of partner - breach of apprehended domestic violence order- possible life threatening consequences- mentally ill offender- available defence of mental illness not taken up – no sworn evidence- contest about influence of drugs on a mental illness diagnosis- deprived background- special circumstances - role of State Parole Authority
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence order) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1987 EvidenceAct1995 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
Cases Cited:	Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 DPP(Cth) vDeLa Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209 Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jahnessa Evelyn Sheree Jerome (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr M Kwan, Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2020/00288396