R v Tuohy

Case [2025] NSWDC 215


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tuohy [2025] NSWDC 215
Hearing dates: 4 April 2025
Date of orders: 4 April 2025
Decision date: 04 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years 3 months with non-parole period of 3 years 6 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Domestic violence — Detain for advantage — Aggravated offence — Choking, suffocation or strangulation — Common assault — Stalking or intimidation — Destroying or damaging property

CRIME — Apprehended Violence Orders — Contravene Apprehended Violence Order

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty for some matters — Limited remorse

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Specific deterrence — General deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality — Aggregate sentences — Crushing sentence — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Disputed facts — Findings of fact separate judgment — Instinctive synthesis

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Mental illness and disorders — Trauma, violence and disadvantage in childhood — Intergeneration trauma — Childhood sexual abuse

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Akkawi v R [2012] NSWCCA 11

Allen v R [2010] NSWCCA 47

Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Ball v R [2013] NSWCCA 126

Bonwick v R [2010] NSWCCA 177

Bott v R [2012] NSWCCA 191

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571

Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150

DeSimoniv The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

GS v R; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v GS [2022] NSWCCA 65

Heine v R [2008] NSWCCA 61

Jibran v R [2020] NSWCCA 86

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59

Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 3; (2013) 249 CLR 600

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 37; (1998) 194 CLR 610

Peiris v R (2014) 240 A Crim R 114

R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128

R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115

R v Dunn [2004] NSWCCA 346

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245

R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183

R v Palmer [2005] NSWCCA 349

R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; 221 A Crim R 175

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

Ryanv The Queen [2001] HCA 21

Continue reading R v Tuohy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tuohy [2025] NSWDC 215
Case
[2025] NSWDC 215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Tuohy was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant was charged with multiple criminal offences including domestic violence, stalking, intimidation, and damaging property. Additionally, the defendant was charged with breaching an Apprehended Violence Order. The case required the court to consider a range of legal issues, including the aggravating factors relevant to sentencing, the defendant's criminal history, the presence of any mitigating factors, and the appropriate penalties to impose in light of the totality of the offences and the objective seriousness of the crimes committed.

The court considered the nature and extent of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's early guilty plea for some matters and the limited extent of remorse shown. The court also examined the defendant's personal circumstances, including his drug addiction, mental health issues, and history of trauma and disadvantage, in determining an appropriate sentence. The court was required to balance these considerations with the need for general and specific deterrence, the objective seriousness of the offences, and the cumulative impact of the multiple offences committed.

The court concluded that the defendant's extensive criminal history, combined with the severity of the current offences and the need for deterrence, warranted a significant custodial sentence. After considering all the relevant factors, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. This sentence reflects the objective seriousness of the offences, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the totality of the defendant's offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years 3 months with non-parole period of 3 years 6 months

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.