(1) Mr Dominic Saliba is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years and 9 months, commencing on 22 April 2023 and expiring on 21 January 2031. I fix a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Mr Saliba will be first eligible for release to parole on 21 July 2027.
(2) In compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to the offender. I direct that the offender’s legal representatives advise him of the existence of the Act and its application to this offence.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – Judge alone trial – not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – fatal stab wound to the chest – cousins – where the offender and the deceased were slapboxing and “mucking around” minutes before the fatal stabbing – where the offender’s anger escalated quickly “zero from a hundred” – no planning – youth – sexual assault as a child – Bugmy Bar Book “Childhood Sexual Abuse” – mental health condition of PTSD – reduced moral culpability – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – little acceptance of responsibility – offer to plead guilty to manslaughter rejected
[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 Saliba (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Saliba (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 659
Case
[2025] NSWSC 659
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was a case of manslaughter, arising from a fatal stabbing incident between cousins. The offender, who had been engaged in playful slapboxing with the deceased minutes before the incident, stabbed the deceased in the chest, resulting in his death. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the offender, who had been found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter following a trial by judge alone. The offender, a young person with a history of childhood sexual abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), had limited prospects of rehabilitation and had shown little acceptance of responsibility for the offence.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court considered various factors, including the sudden escalation of the offender's anger, the absence of any prior planning or intent to kill, and the offender's limited capacity for rehabilitation. The court also took into account the offender's background, including the impact of childhood sexual abuse and PTSD, and the offender's limited acceptance of responsibility for the offence.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the principles outlined in the Bugmy Bar Book and the offender's reduced moral culpability due to the impact of childhood sexual abuse and PTSD. The court also considered the offender's limited prospects for rehabilitation and the fact that the offender had rejected an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. Ultimately, the court found that the offender's sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the offender's reduced moral culpability, and the need for the offender to accept responsibility for the offence. The court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that balanced these factors and provided an opportunity for the offender to address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour.
The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, followed by a period of supervision under a community corrections order. The court also ordered that the offender participate in a rehabilitation program that addressed the underlying causes of their offending behaviour, including the impact of childhood sexual abuse and PTSD. The court further ordered that the offender be subject to certain conditions during their period of supervision, including regular reporting to a corrections officer and participation in a program to address any substance abuse issues.