R v Mulquin - [2021] NSWDC 662

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mulquin [2021] NSWDC 662
Hearing dates: 19 August 2021
Date of orders: 19 August 2021
Decision date: 19 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME- Common assault (DV) - Intentionally choke a person without consent - Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm (domestic) - Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) - Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – late guilty plea - multiple domestic violence offences- on parole - breach of an Apprehended Violence Order - need for residential rehabilitation on release - uncontroversial history - letter setting out good intentions have to be matched by good actions

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Perrin v R [2021] NSWDC 408
R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256 (2016) 91 ALJR 131

Category: Sentence
Parties: Gregory Denis Mulquin (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms T Lasschuit (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2020/00270009

sentence – ex tempore revised

Greg Denis Mulquin is for sentence today for seven (7) offences that all occurred in the context of his continuing relationship with the complainant.
In November 2019 he went to gaol for a number of matters involving assaults and contravening Apprehended Violence Orders. His appeal to this Court against the severity of that sentence was dismissed. He was released to parole on 8 September 2020. During his time in custody, he had applied himself diligently and engaged in courses designed to better equip him for life in the community and for the relationship that he and the complainant intended to continue.
Mulquin was born in 1970, he has a longstanding problem which his psychologist diagnoses as an alcohol use disorder. He also suffers from anxiety and self-esteem issues. The complainant also has a number of problems that she is dealing with. She was, I expect, looking forward to getting some support from Mr Mulquin on his release. I am sure that Mr Mulquin, prior to his release on 8 September, promised himself and his partner that he would not go back to drinking. But he started drinking almost as soon as he left custody. It would appear that he didn’t stop drinking until he was arrested on 16 November 2020.
He has been in custody ever since, serving balance of parole of a sentence which made a significant allowance for special circumstances and which concluded on 15 July 2021.

Agreed facts

The agreed facts before the Court are detailed. I will summarise them in order to highlight the objective seriousness of each of the matters. One of the requirements for formulating an appropriate…

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 Mulquin

Details

AGLC: R v Mulquin [2021] NSWDC 662
Case: [2021] NSWDC 662
Decision Date: 19 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mulquin, was charged with a series of domestic violence offences, including common assault, stalking and intimidation, and damaging property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the trial judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment. Mulquin sought to appeal the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The key issues for the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's late guilty plea, the cumulative impact of his multiple domestic violence offences, his parole status, and the breach of an Apprehended Violence Order.

The court held that the appellant's late guilty plea was a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence, but it was not determinative. The court also considered the cumulative impact of the appellant's multiple domestic violence offences, which demonstrated a pattern of abusive behaviour towards his partner. The court further noted that the appellant was on parole at the time of the offences and had breached an Apprehended Violence Order, which indicated a failure to comply with legal requirements designed to protect his partner. The court held that the need for residential rehabilitation on release was an important factor to consider, but it was not determinative of the sentence. The court also considered the appellant's uncontroversial history and a letter he had written setting out his good intentions, but held that these factors had to be matched by good actions.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a total of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years. The court emphasised the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and sending a clear message that domestic violence will not be tolerated.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years 6 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mulquin [2021] NSWDC 662
Hearing dates:	19 August 2021
Date of orders:	19 August 2021
Decision date:	19 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME- Common assault (DV) - Intentionally choke a person without consent - Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm (domestic) - Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) - Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV) SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – late guilty plea - multiple domestic violence offences- on parole - breach of an Apprehended Violence Order - need for residential rehabilitation on release - uncontroversial history - letter setting out good intentions have to be matched by good actions
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 Perrin v R [2021] NSWDC 408 R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128 The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256 (2016) 91 ALJR 131
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Gregory Denis Mulquin (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms T Lasschuit (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2020/00270009