R v Shlimon

[2025] NSWLC 2

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Shlimon [2025] NSWLC 2

Hearing dates:

9 January 2025

Date of orders:

13 January 2025

Decision date:

13 January 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Stewart LCM

Decision:

Imprisonment 5 years NPP 3 years 1 month

Disqualification 5 years extended by time in prison

Catchwords:

Police pursuit subsequent offence – 3rd pursuit in 4 years – driving disqualified – subsequent offence – drive under the influence of drug subsequent offence – defendant only ever held learner licence – use offensive weapon to avoid lawful detention – objective seriousness – special circumstances – submission re low objective seriousness of disqualified driving rejected – possession of taser and extendable baton contrary to Weapons Prohibition Orders – totality – eligible drug defendant referral

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Act s.3A, 5, 10A, 21A, 44(2B), 53A, 58

Crimes Act 1900 s.33B, 51B

Drug Court Act 1998 s.5a, 18B

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s.10

Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation of 2017 reg.129

Road Transport Act 2013 s.4, 9, 54, 112, 205, 206A

Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 s.7, 34(1)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Byrne v R; Cahill v R [2021] NSWCCA 185

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1

Felton v R [2010] NSWCCA 79

Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140

Jibran v R [2020] NSWCCA 86

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048

McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 42

Osman v R [2020] NSWCCA 78

Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37

R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102

R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566

R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255

R v Perrin [2022] NSWCCA 170

Westaway v R [2016] NSWCCA 281

Texts Cited:

NSW Police Annual Report 2019-2020 re Police Pursuits page 107

NSW Police Annual Report 2020-2021 re Police Pursuits at page 101

NSW Police Annual Report 2021-2022 re Police Pursuits at page 106

NSW Police Annual Report 2022-2023 re Police Pursuits at page 110

NSW Police Annual Report 2023-2024 re Police Pursuits at page 135

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

NSW Police Force (prosecution) and
Anthony Shlimon (defendant)

Representation:

Sergeant Misikos, Police Prosecutor

Solicitor: A Robinson, Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s):

2024/220482, 2024/269570, 2024/291759

Publication restriction:

NIL

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The Charges and the Pleas

1. The defendant Anthony Shlimon pleaded guilty to the following offences [H98516608]:

1. Police Pursuit – not stop – drive in a manner dangerous – subsequent offence – contrary to section 52B(1) of the Crimes Act of 1900;

2. Drive Under the Influence of Drugs (second or subsequent offence) contrary to section 112(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act of 2013;

3. Drive whilst Disqualified – second or subsequent offence contrary to section 54(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act;

4. Use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Detention contrary to section 33B(1) of the Crimes Act;

5. Possess Prohibited Weapon contrary to section 7 of the Weapons Prohibition Act of 1998 (2 counts);

6. Possess Prohibited Weapon contrary to Prohibition Order, contrary to section 34(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act (2 counts);

7. Possess Prohibited Drug contrary to section 10 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act of 1985 (2 counts); and

8. Use Class A vehicle with unauthorised number plate affixed contrary to Regulation 129(1) of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation of 2017.

2. Pleas of guilty were entered at an early opportunity to offences [H81016703]:

1. Possess Prohibited Drug; and

2. Drive whilst Disqualified – second or subsequent offence

3. A further guilty plea was entered to the offence of Possess Prohibited Drug at an early opportunity [H80976837].

4. In relation to the offences set out in H98516608, pleas of not guilty were entered on 23 August 2024 to sequences 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14. Guilty pleas were entered to all other sequences. On 9 January 2025 sequences 7, 12 and 14 were withdrawn. Guilty pleas were entered to the remaining sequences.

5. In accordance with the principles enunciated in R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 at [32], I allow a discount of 15% for the delayed guilty pleas. A discount of 25% will be applied to the remaining counts.

Maximum Penalties

6. I am required to assess the appropriate sentence having regard to the prescribed maximum penalty for the offence: see Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37 at [19]; Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140 at [66] and Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048 at [31].

7. In Greaves v R, Cavanagh J. with Hoeben CJ at CL and Hamill J. agreeing, said:

[66]“…..the sentencing principles applicable to the process of sentencing remain the same in the local and district courts……

The magistrate was required to assess the appropriate sentence having regard to the prescribed maximum penalty for each offence rather than any jurisdictional limit. The jurisdictional limit only becomes relevant if the assessment leads to a sentence greater than the limit.”

8. The principle in Greaves is clear. The Local Court in sentencing an defendant is no different to the way in which the District Court should sentence an defendant, subject to the jurisdictional limit if the sentence that should be imposed for an individual offence exceeds that limit.

9. The maximum penalty for the offences are:

1. Police Pursuit (second or subsequent offence) is 5 years imprisonment with disqualification of 5 years;

2. Drive Under the Influence of Drugs (second or subsequent offence) is 2 years imprisonment and/or fine of $5,500 with automatic disqualification of 5 years and unlimited maximum disqualification;

3. Drive Disqualified (second or subsequent offence) is 12 months imprisonment and/or fines of $5,500 with disqualification of 12 months;

4. Use Offensive Weapon to prevent lawful detention is 12 years imprisonment;

5. Possess Prohibited Weapon contrary to a Weapons Prohibition Order is 10 years imprisonment;

6. Possess Prohibited Weapon is 14 years imprisonment;

7. Possess Prohibited Drug is 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine; and

8. Use Class A vehicle with unauthorised number plate affixed is a fine of $2,200.

Agreed Facts

10. A set of agreed facts was tendered for the purpose of these sentencing proceedings.

Pursuit – Drive Disqualified – Use Offensive Weapon – Possess Prohibited Weapon etc [H98516608]:

11. About 11:40am on 8 August 2024, police from the traffic response group, being two police Highway Patrol motorcyclists, were performing random breath testing and random drug testing on Hoxton Park Road, Cartwright. The defendant, driving a silver BMW convertible, stopped in lane one and began reversing at a high-speed travelling west in the eastbound lanes. Traffic at that time was light.

12. Police rode after the vehicle, which was still reversing away from them, and initiated a pursuit. Police noticed that the vehicle was bearing fake registration plates.

13. The vehicle turned left onto Joadja Road, going through a red traffic control light and crossed to the wrong side of the road for short periods, to overtake vehicles, in an effort to get away from police, reaching speeds of 100 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.

14. Police caught up with the vehicle upon reaching Weld Street, however, the vehicle increased speed and continually crossed unbroken lines in order to overtake vehicles, causing oncoming vehicles to pull to the left to avoid a collision on numerous occasions.

15. The defendant drove on the incorrect side of the road, briefly, and entered a roundabout on the wrong side of the roadway, whilst a semitrailer was attempting to turn right, before accelerating to a speed of 100 kph, eventually turning left onto Powerdrill Road, reaching a speed of 96 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, until getting to the end of the dead-end street. He performed a u-turn and drove the BMW directly at police on the motorcycles, who had to brake heavily to avoid a collision, narrowly missing the front of the Highway Patrol motorcycle, before accelerating to a speed of 100 kph and turning right onto Jeda Street and left onto Lyn Parade. The vehicle then drove on the incorrect side of a roundabout, narrowly missing a large semitrailer that was already into the intersection performing a u-turn, then continued and crossed onto the wrong side of another road, entering a roundabout on the incorrect side of the roadway, continuing along Progress Circuit and back onto Lyn Parade, before driving onto the footpath due to heavy traffic congestion for approximately 200 metres, having reached speeds of 112 kph in a 60 zone, but dramatically slowing due to heavy traffic.

16. The defendant again drove the vehicle on the incorrect side of the road before turning left onto Jeda Road and left onto the M7 motorway, before merging left sharply across three lanes to the Camden Valley Way offramp, at a speed of 118 km/h.

17. The vehicle continued through the intersection displaying a red traffic control light, turning right from the left-hand slip lane to Camden Valley Way in a westerly direction as a number of vehicles braked heavily to avoid collision.

18. Road spikes were being deployed and the vehicle again drove onto the footpath due to heavy traffic. Two fully marked Highway Patrol cars had commenced a rolling roadblock to end the pursuit. The defendant again drove onto the footpath at speeds of over 60 km/h.

19. Police managed to block the path of the vehicle and in doing so they have slowed the speed down to 20 kph. The defendant drove the motor vehicle into the rear of one of the police Highway Patrol cars to avoid apprehension and caused the vehicle he was driving to become incapacitated, causing significant damage to the rear of the Highway Patrol car.

20. Police directed the defendant to get out of the vehicle, however he refused. He was physically removed through the open window and restrained, with several officers required to subdue him.

21. Checks revealed that the defendant was disqualified from driving until 17 October 2027 following a conviction for a police pursuit dealt with at Fairfield Local Court on 18 January 2023.

22. Police searched the defendant and located several items of interest including two prohibited weapons being a taser and an extendable baton. The defendant was the subject of a Weapons Prohibition Order at the time.

23. Police located plastic bags inside the defendant’s underwear containing 1 gram of cocaine and 1 gram of methyl-amphetamine. The vehicle was found to have been stolen, however it is not established that the defendant was aware of that fact.

24. Police noted that the defendant was slow in his speech and seemed to be “on the nod.” When speaking with the defendant, he was slow to react and pale in colour, with eyes glazed and pinpoint pupils. Police formed the opinion that the defendant was under the influence of a drug and informed him that he was going to Liverpool Hospital for blood and urine testing. The defendant supplied a blood test but refused to supply a urine sample even after a direction to do so was given.

25. Police were of the opinion that the defendant’s manner of driving was extremely dangerous, putting members of the community in the vicinity at significant risk of injury and harm.

Drive whilst disqualified (2+ offence) and Possess Prohibited Drug [H81016703]

26. About 7:30am on Wednesday 12 June 2024, police with the assistance of a drug detection dog and handler were conducting patrols in the gaming room of the Railway Hotel at Liverpool. The drug detection dog indicated the presence of a prohibited drug in the free airspace around the defendant. The defendant informed police that he was not sure why the dog indicated on him. Police noticed that he was nervous, and his hands were shaking, and that he would not make eye contact. He appeared to be under the influence of a prohibited drug. His eyes were glassy, pupils dilated and his skin clammy and pale.

27. The defendant told police that he may be in possession of cannabis in his bag, and that he was dropped at the location by friend who was no longer there. Within the defendant’s black carry bag, a foil containing cannabis was located which weighed 1.07 g. He told police he was holding the drug for a friend. Police located a set of car keys in his pocket, and he gave inconsistent versions about how we got to the location. The keys belong to a silver Nissan which was parked directly at the front of the hotel. The defendant told police that he was aware that his licence was disqualified but denied driving to the location. Police reviewed CCTV footage clearly depicting the defendant driving the vehicle to the location at 7am and that he was the sole occupant. He subsequently admitted to driving to the location.

28. The facts refer to the defendant holding a class C learner’s licence with an expiry date of 20 March 2013 with his licence endorsed disqualified until 2028.

Possess Prohibited Drug [H 8097 6837]

29. On 5 July 2020 around 8:40pm, police were conducting patrols in Woodward Crescent, Miller and noticed the defendant walking. Upon pulling alongside the defendant, they noticed him drop a small clear resealable bag on the ground. Police retrieved the bag and observed what appeared to be a small amount of heroin inside. The drug was weighed at 0.76 g.

Criminal Record

30. In 2009, the defendant was convicted of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm, offensive language and resist police in the execution of duty. In 2010 he was fined for possession of a prohibited drug and driving whilst licence suspended under the Fines Act.

31. In 2013, the defendant was convicted and disqualified for three counts of driving whilst disqualified. He was subsequently imprisoned for four years and six months for three counts of supplying a prohibited drug, conducting drug premises, and possession of a prohibited weapon without a permit, with offences of possess unregistered prohibited firearm, goods in custody, possess ammunition and dealing with property being suspected proceeds of crime taken into account on a Form 1. The sentence was backdated to 2012 and to expire on 11 July 2016.

32. Whilst on parole, the defendant committed offences of driving whilst disqualified and other traffic matters. In 2017, he was convicted and imprisoned for possession of a prohibited drug, carrying a cutting weapon upon apprehension, and carried in a conveyance taken without the consent of the owner. In 2018, there were convictions for possession of a prescribed restricted substance, failing to appear, possessing implements to enter or drive conveyance, goods in custody, custody of a knife, driving whilst disqualified (multiple counts), driving with an illicit drug present in blood, take and drive conveyance without consent of the owner and dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception.

33. In 2020, the defendant was placed on an Intensive Correction Order for possess prohibited drug (multiple counts) and custody of a knife in a public place (multiple counts). In 2021, the defendant was imprisoned for taking and driving a conveyance without consent of the owner, resist police in the execution of duty, driving whilst disqualified (subsequent offence), police pursuit (1^st offence) and larceny.

34. In 2022, the defendant was placed on a Community Corrections Order for being found upon drug premises and fined for offences of possessing a prescribed restricted substance and goods in custody.

35. In 2023, the defendant was imprisoned for police pursuit (second or subsequent offence) and driving whilst disqualified (second or subsequent offence). The aggregate sentence was for 20 months from 18 February 2023 until 17 October 2024. He was disqualified for a period of three years from 19 January 2023 until 18 January 2026, extended by the period of imprisonment pursuant to section 206A of the Road Transport Act.

Conditional Liberty

36. All of the matters for which the defendant is to be sentenced occurred whilst he was subject to parole for a police pursuit (second or subsequent offence) and drive whilst disqualified (second or subsequent offence).

37. The commission of further offences whilst on conditional liberty is a statutory aggravating factor pursuant to section 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Plea in Mitigation

38. It was submitted that the offences associated with the police pursuit were above the mid-range of objective seriousness, other than the drug possession matters, noting that the defendant was on parole for similar offending when the driving offences were committed.

39. It was further submitted that the drive whilst disqualified matter was in the lower end of objective seriousness.

40. The defendant is an Assyrian refugee who came to Australia from Iraq at the age of four. His mother has schizophrenia. There was said to be physical violence within the family home. He was introduced to drugs during his high school years. The defendant has three siblings who are supportive of him. The defendant wants assistance for his drug addiction issues.

41. The defendant’s partner passed away at the age of 29 whilst he was in custody, and he told his lawyer that he could not mourn in custody. He visited her grave upon his release and relapsed into drug use.

42. It is conceded that full-time custody is the only available sentence in the circumstances of this offending and having regard to his record. The Court is asked to make a finding of special circumstances in relation to his drug addiction issues, grief issues and make a finding relation to Bugmy issues – referring to Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

Objective Seriousness

43. In Byrne v R; Cahill v R [2021] NSWCCA 185 at [115], Rothman J. (with Bell P. now the Chief Justice, and Button J. agreeing) said:

115. The reason that the length of time or distance travelled is usually a matter affecting moral culpability or objective seriousness is that it impacts upon the risk to the community and the safety of others. However, 500 m in a built-up area of a city may be far more dangerous and a far greater risk to the safety of others than 5 km in an area where it is unlikely, if not impossible, to come into contact with other road users or pedestrians.

44. In Mr Shlimon’s case, the pursuit was in daylight commencing around 11:40am on a Thursday, noting that he was arrested at 11.52am. Traffic varied from light to heavy and involved some major roads. The defendant went through red traffic control lights, and onto the incorrect side of the road on a number of occasions causing oncoming vehicles to pull to the left of the road to avoid a collision.

45. On two occasions, the defendant entered a roundabout on the wrong side of the roundabout whilst vehicles were using that intersection. During the pursuit, the vehicle travelled at speeds well in excess of the applicable speed limit.

46. In the High Court decision of McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 42 at pp.49-50 para. 11-14, the Court discussed the meaning of driving in a manner dangerous to the public. Barwick CJ said at [13]:

[13] ………A person may drive at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public without causing any actual injury: it is the potentiality in fact of danger to the public in the manner of driving, whether realized by the accused or not, which makes it dangerous to the public within the meaning of the section.

47. In Mr Shlimon’s case, ‘the potentiality in fact of the danger to the public in the manner of driving’ was very high. He has only ever held a learner’s licence which confirms his inexperience regarding driving lawfully.

48. The objective seriousness of the police pursuit matter is comfortably in the mid-range. In addition to the objective seriousness, I have already referred to the statutory aggravating factor affecting all offences due to the defendant being on conditional liberty at the time. At the same time, he was driving under the influence of a drug, only ever held a Learner’s licence and was disqualified by a Court from driving.

49. Police have not provided a pharmacological report offering an opinion as to the degree of affection by a prohibited drug concerning the drive under the influence of drugs matter. I note, however, in the agreed facts the observations made of the defendant upon his arrest, and there can be no doubt that he was under the influence of a drug – noting that he appeared to be ‘on the nod’. I take judicial notice that such expression refers to a person who is barely awake and nodding off to sleep at times. The defendant was slow in his speech, slow to react when police were speaking to him, with eyes glazed and pinpoint pupils.

47. I find the objective seriousness to be in the mid-range.

48. In relation to each of the driving whilst disqualified matters, I note what was said in Felton v R [2010] NSWCCA 79 by Howie J at [28]:

“The offence of drive while disqualified does not lend itself to significant variations in seriousness.”

52. At the time of offending, the defendant was disqualified until 2028 for the previous major offence of police pursuit and driving whilst disqualified – both of which are second or subsequent offences.

53. One of the leading cases highlighting some sentencing principles for the offence of driving whilst disqualified is Jibran v R [2020] NSWCCA 86. Johnson J. said at para. [189]:

“It is the bare act of driving whilst disqualified which constitutes the offence.  In New South Wales, disqualification from driving follows conviction by a court, which may give rise to “ordered disqualification” or “automatic disqualification” (without a specific court order): ss.204-205, Road Transport Act 2013. Disqualification differs from licence suspension or cancellation which results from administrative action and not court proceedings: see, for example, ss.40, 59 Road Transport Act 2013.  Accordingly, driving whilst disqualified involves an offender defying an order made in or flowing from curial proceedings…”

54. At para. [198]:

“Offences of driving whilst disqualified are summary offences prosecuted in the Local Court, although the present offence was before the District Court (and this Court) by way of a s.166 Certificate. It is helpful to note what was said by his Honour Judge Henson in Police v Te Pairi [2008] NSWLC 17 at [53]:

“The second sequence of driving whilst disqualified … also warrants the imposition of a term of imprisonment. The principles of general and specific deterrence are of particular importance to these types of offences. Offenders who are disqualified from driving need to know that the community and the court expects that the sentences imposed for offending behaviour will not simply be ignored. Irrespective of the motivation of the offender, predicated as it was on self-interest, the need to respect the law requires from time to time a strong message to be sent to offenders that their wilful disobedience of its strictures comes at a price. In this case the price the offender will pay will be to lose his liberty.”

His Honour said at paragraph [200] that “a very strong measure of specific and general deterrence is required for the offence of driving whilst disqualified.”

55. Finally at para. [205], Johnson J. said:

‘A real concern with respect to the Applicant is his complete disregard for the law as demonstrated by his recidivist history of driving whilst disqualified. That contumelious approach requires a further level of significant caution in assessing his prospects of rehabilitation and compliance with court orders.’

56. The objective seriousness of each drive whilst disqualified (subsequent offence) matter is high.

57. The use offensive weapon to prevent lawful detention matter involved driving on one occasion during the pursuit at 2 police motorcyclists, which required harsh braking by police to avoid a collision and subsequently driving into the rear of a highway patrol car that was endeavouring to block the defendant’s path to slow the pursuit. The objective seriousness is well into the mid-range.

58. The defendant was in possession of a taser and an extendable baton, each of which were found ‘on his person’. I infer from that description in the facts sheet that the items were easily retrievable. Mr Shlimon has a prior conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon for which he served a term of imprisonment.

59. At the time of possession, the defendant was the subject of a Weapons Prohibition Order. Such an Order is made by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to section 33 of the Weapons Prohibition Act if of the opinion that the person is not fit, in the public interest, to be permitted to have possession of a prohibited weapon.

60. In R v Campbell; R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1 at [9], Rothman J. when sentencing for firearms offences also made comment in relation to weapons generally, and said:

[9] The possession and use of firearms in society is an extremely troubling aspect, for which general deterrence and specific deterrence loom large. The possession of weapons generally, by which I include knives, has become far too common in society. The possession of such weapons undermines the fabric of society and, when possessed for the purpose of other criminal activity, puts at risk the rule of law and the appropriate relationship between members of society.

61. The underlying principles of the Weapons Prohibition Act are set out in section 3 and refer to the overriding need to ensure public safety, and to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of prohibited weapons.

62. I am satisfied the defendant had possession of both prohibited weapons for the purpose of other criminal activity. I draw that inference in accordance with the principles in R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35 at 46 and 47.

63. I acknowledge that there are many types of prohibited weapon – some more likely than others to inflict serious harm or lethal harm when used. I do not consider the taser and extendable baton to be of that nature, though they are both capable of disabling a person and causing physical harm. In those circumstances, I find each possession count to be still within the lower range.

64. The possession of the prohibited weapons contrary to a Weapons Prohibition Order is a further example of the defendant’s disregard for the law.

General Remarks

65. No request was made for a Sentencing Assessment Report as it was conceded that only a full -time custodial sentence was appropriate. The bare submissions were made that the defendant was a refugee at the age of 4. I do not doubt that. It was submitted that there was violence in the family home. The defendant has not given evidence. There is insufficient material to make a finding that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen are enlivened.

66. If those principles were enlivened, it may impact on the defendant’s moral culpability. However, even if that were the case, it would need to be balanced against the importance of protecting the community from the defendant: see Bugmy v R at [44].

Section 3A and Section 5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

67. This is the defendant’s third police pursuit committed in the past 4 years. Prison sentences have not deterred such offending, nor have they deterred him from driving whilst disqualified or possessing prohibited weapons. The offending on this occasion has escalated due to the use of the vehicle that he drove as an offensive weapon to prevent lawful detention, whilst under the influence of drugs.

68. The following Table compiled from the NSW Police Annual Reports for 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 shows an increasing number of pursuits during that 5 year period, with current statistics revealing an average of more than 340 pursuits per month in this State.

69. It is acknowledged that the objective seriousness of pursuits will vary on a case-by-case basis, though in any view, the offence is prevalent.

Reporting Year	Number of Pursuits	Number of Collisions	Number of Fatalities	Number of Injuries
2019-20	3117	166	0	71
2020-21	2872	155	1	55
2021-22	3398	324	4	78
2022-23	3762	203	6	72
2023-24	4087	343	2	27

70. The defendant’s actions pose an undeniable and significant risk to the community. There is a strong need for general deterrence, specific deterrence, protection of the community, to ensure that the defendant is adequately punished, and make him accountable for his actions, in accordance with the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

71. I am satisfied that the driving and weapons related matters cross the section 5 threshold, referring to section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. In other words, having considered all other possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. The matters that do not cross that threshold are the drug possession matters and the number plate offence.

Aggregate Sentence

72. I will deal with the defendant by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to section 53A of the Act. I have applied the relevant discounts for the utilitarian value of each guilty plea. Each sentence reflects the common law principle of proportionality as referred to by Spigelman CJ in R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 at [15]:

“It is authoritatively established that the common law principle of proportionality, propounded in Veen v The Queen (No 2), requires that a sentence should not exceed what is proportionate to the gravity of the crime, having regard to the objective circumstances. (Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 at 354.) In a line of cases, commencing with R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 at 354, referred to and affirmed by a five judge bench in R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 at [156]–[158], the proportionality principle is also held to apply so that a sentence should not be less than the objective gravity of the offence requires.”

73. The indicative sentences are as follows:

Sequence:	Offence	Indicative Sentence
H98516608 1.	Police Pursuit – not stop – drive in manner dangerous to public – subsequent offence	21 months
2.	Drive Under the Influence of Drugs	9 months
3.	Drive Whilst Disqualified (2+ offence)	9 months
4.	Use Offensive Weapon to Prevent Lawful Detention	2 years (starting point 3 years 6 months) – jurisdictional limit applied
5.	Possess Prohibited Weapon contrary to Weapons Prohibition Order	13 months
6.	Possess Prohibited Weapon contrary to Weapons Prohibition Order	13 months
8.	Possess Prohibited Weapon	15 months
9.	Possess Prohibited Weapon	15 months
H8106703 Seq.1	Drive whilst disqualified – (2+ offence)	8 months

74. The overall sentence is 5 years imprisonment.

75. Whilst the police pursuit and the driving whilst disqualified offences were part of the same sequence of events, and the possession of prohibited weapons and charges regarding such possession in contravention of a weapons prohibition order occurred through the same act of possession, thus justifying some concurrency in sentences, they reflect additional criminality that warrant a degree of accumulation: see Westaway v R [2016] NSWCCA 281 at [21] per Macfarlan JA. The degree of accumulation between the possession of the weapons and possession in contravention of a prohibition order is minimal.

76. I have had regard to the relevant principles in relation to totality and partial accumulation set out in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 and in R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255.

77. The combination of the dangerousness of the defendant’s driving, the fact that he was disqualified from driving, and lack of lawful experience as a driver is of genuine concern and the frequency of him driving whilst disqualified and involving himself in police pursuits is also of genuine concern.

78. I am unable to find that the defendant has good prospects of rehabilitation. Nor am I able to find that he is unlikely to reoffend. He represents a risk to the community.

Special Circumstances

79. Pursuant to section 44(2B) of the Act, I make a finding of special circumstances concerning the defendant’s issues regarding his longstanding drug addiction issues, and recent grief issues. The non-parole period will be reduced to recognise the fact that the defendant will require a longer period on parole to reintegrate into society and promote his rehabilitation.

Totality

80. The defendant has been in custody since 8 August 2024, noting that he was on parole for a sentence that expired on 17 October 2024. Additionally, he was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment from 18 January 2023 to 17 March 2023.

81. There are no issues arising in relation to section 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act as the defendant’s earlier sentence has expired prior to him now being sentenced: see R v Perrin [2022] NSWCCA 170 at [81].

82. Nevertheless, I must take into account the prior sentences together with the new sentence to be imposed to give effect to the principle of totality: see Osman v R [2020] NSWCCA 78 at 53..

83. The overall sentences for the two previous periods of imprisonment and the present matter are from 17 January 2023 to 7 August 2029 which is 6 years 6 months and 22 days. The defendant served 1 month of the earliest sentence before the commencement of the 20 months sentence that commenced on 18 February 2023. He served a non-parole period of 13 months for that sentence. I repeat that the defendant has been in custody 5 months and 13 days since he was refused bail on the current matters. The total time in custody is 19 months 13 days as of today.

84. I note the ratio of non-parole to head sentence for the 20-month sentence was 65%. By way of comparison only, I note the ratio for the earlier sentence imposed on appeal by the District Court on 4 March 2021 was 66%. Consistent with my finding in the present matters, there is no reference to Bugmy issues being found in the past.

Eligible Convicted Defendant – section 5A of the Drug Act of 1998

85. The defendant appears to meet the definition of an eligible convicted defendant: see s 5A of the Drug Court Act 1998. Given his longstanding drug issues, a referral will be made to the Drug Court in accordance with section 18B of that Act.

ORDERS

86. The defendant Anthony Shlimon is sentenced by way of aggregate sentence to a term of imprisonment of 5 years from 8 August 2024 to 7 August 2029.

87. The non-parole period is 3 years 1 month from 8 August 2024 to 7 September 2027. The ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence is approximately 61.6% reflecting a finding of special circumstances and taking into account totality.

88. For the police pursuit matter and drive under the influence of drugs matter, the defendant is disqualified from driving for a period of 5 years from 13 January 2025 and the disqualification period is to be further extended by the period of imprisonment in accordance with section 206A of the Road Transport Act.

89. For each count of driving whilst disqualified, the defendant is disqualified for 12 months from 13 January 2025 to 12 January 2026.

90. The defendant is referred to the Drug Court to determine whether the defendant should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order in accordance with s 18B of the Drug Court Act.

91. In relation to the counts of Possess Prohibited Drug, and in relation to the use of unauthorised number plates, a bare conviction is recorded pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Decision last updated: 21 May 2025