R v Richard Schaaf - [2025] NSWDC 444

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Richard Schaaf
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWDC 444
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 imposed. For orders see [79]-[86]
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others – Aggregate sentence – Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138 KR v R [2012] NSWCCA 32 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79 Somba v R [2012] NSWCCA 214 Veen v R [No. 2] (1998) 164 CLR 465 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Richard Schaaf (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (The Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Woods (the offender) Ms E Blizard; Mr A Isaacs (the Crown) Solicitors: Mr G Goold (the offender) Ms D Horsley (the Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/00124978
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 1992 is to be sentenced in respect of the following 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.
The offences occurred on 14 April 2021, and the offender was arrested on 5 May 2021. At the time of the offence the offender was subject to an Intensive Correction Order (“ICO”) and Community Correction Order (“CCO”). The ICO had been imposed for a period of 2 years and 2 months commencing on 21 March 2021 for offences of knowingly direct activities of criminal group and supply prohibited drug greater than the indictable quantity. The CCO had been imposed for a period of 18 months, commencing on 1 September 2020 for an offence of stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic).
The ICO was revoked by order made on 1 June 2021 with effect from 14 April 2021. The offender was therefore in custody serving a term of imprisonment for those offences for a period of 1 year, 4 months and 25 days. He was bail refused from the date of his…

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 Richard Schaaf

Details

AGLC: R v Richard Schaaf [2025] NSWDC 444
Case: [2025] NSWDC 444
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Richard Schaaf, the defendant was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria to address charges stemming from stalking, intimidation, and assault. The case involved the defendant's conduct towards a woman in company, which included stalking and intimidating behaviour intended to cause fear of physical harm, culminating in an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate aggregate sentence for the defendant's multiple offences, considering the cumulative impact of his actions on the victim and the need for an effective deterrent and rehabilitative measure.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of the defendant's conduct and the suitability of an intensive correction order (ICO) as a form of sentence. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's culpability, and the necessity of the sentence to achieve justice for the victim, deterrence, and the rehabilitation of the offender. Additionally, the court had to balance the defendant's rights with the need to protect the community.

In delivering its judgment, the court first acknowledged the gravity of the defendant's actions, which involved a pattern of stalking and intimidation that escalated to a physical assault. The court found that the defendant's conduct caused significant fear and distress to the victim, and the assault resulted in actual bodily harm. The court considered the defendant's previous criminal history and his remorse, but also the need for a sentence that would adequately address the offences and serve as a deterrent. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an intensive correction order was an appropriate sentence. The court imposed the order, setting out detailed conditions to ensure the defendant's rehabilitation and protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Intensive Correction Order imposed. For orders see [79]-[86]

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.