R v Salom - [2021] NSWDC 386

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Salom [2021] NSWDC 386
Hearing dates: 23 April 2021
Date of orders: 30 April 2021 and 18 June 2021
Decision date: 18 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years and 10 months imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords:
CRIME — Domestic violence — “Personal violence offence”
CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW), s 35(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 3A, 66, 4B

Cases Cited:
Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Moiler v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 73
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Miles Salom (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Trajovski (Crown)
Mr G James QC with Mr E James (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/67936
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

30 April 2021

Introduction

The offender stands to be sentenced, having pleading guilty to two offences under s 35(2) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The first offence occurred on 24 September 2015, the victim being Amanda Holmes and is contained in charge sequence 11. The second offence occurred on 25 April 2017, the victim being the same victim as in the first offence and is contained in charge sequence 14. The maximum penalty for each offence is ten years imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non-parole period of four years.
The offender also acknowledges his guilt and asks that I take into account two offences on two Form 1s. The offence on the Form 1 which relates to charge sequence 11 is an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. It occurred on 30 July 2016 and concerns the same victim of the principal offence. On 30 July 2016, the offender pushed the victim who fell backwards and suffered a broken wrist. This offence is of sufficient seriousness to have some impact upon the sentence to be imposed on the charge that it relates to.
The offence on the Form 1 which relates to charge sequence 14 is also an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the same victim. In short, that offence involved the offender on an occasion on 15 October 2018, grabbing the victim on her neck and pushing her backwards, occasioning a bruise to her left neckline. This Form 1 offence has a limited impact upon the sentence to be imposed on the charge to which it relates.

The Facts

The facts are agreed and the following is taken from the agreed facts. The offender and the victim met in about December 2014 through an internet dating website. They first met in Cronulla at a bar, and saw each other regularly after that. They commenced dating and they were in an on again, off…

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 Salom

Details

AGLC: R v Salom [2021] NSWDC 386
Case: [2021] NSWDC 386
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Salom involved the defendant being charged with various offences of personal violence and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the State, where the defendant was found guilty on all counts. The primary issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his mental illness and other mitigating factors. The court was required to balance the seriousness of the offences with the need to consider the defendant’s mental health and other personal circumstances.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for violent offences, focusing particularly on the impact of the defendant's mental illness on his culpability and the potential for rehabilitation. The prosecution argued for a substantial custodial sentence to reflect the severity of the offences and to provide deterrence, while the defence urged the court to consider an alternative sentence that would allow for treatment and rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the defendant's mental health issues and their impact on his actions, but also recognised the need to protect the community and uphold the law.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of two years and ten months imprisonment was appropriate. However, the court decided that this term should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, which would allow for rehabilitation and treatment while still imposing a significant penalty. The court concluded that this approach balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and the opportunity for the defendant to address his mental health issues and reintegrate into society. The court's decision reflected a careful weighing of the various factors and the principles of sentencing in cases involving violent offences and mental illness.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years and 10 months imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order

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 Salom [2021] NSWDC 386
Hearing dates:	23 April 2021
Date of orders:	30 April 2021 and 18 June 2021
Decision date:	18 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years and 10 months imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME — Domestic violence — “Personal violence offence” CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 (NSW), s 35(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 3A, 66, 4B
Cases Cited:	Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Moiler v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 73 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Miles Salom (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Trajovski (Crown) Mr G James QC with Mr E James (Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/67936
Publication restriction:	Nil