R v Tang [2022] NSWDC 1

R v Tang [2022] NSWDC 1

Given the seriousness of the offence (reckless grievous bodily harm), the number of blows inflicted, and the resulting injuries, the threshold for a custodial sentence was crossed under section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. However, considering the offender's lack of prior criminal history, genuine remorse, low risk of reoffending, and positive steps toward rehabilitation, together with the assessment that a term of 18 months was appropriate after a 25% discount for the early plea, the Court found that community safety and sentencing objectives would be best met by the sentence being served by way of an intensive corrections order rather than full-time custody.

Parties
Crown: NSW DPP; Offender: Dian Tang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentencing Decision
Outcome
The offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order, with additional conditions including community service and psychological treatment.
Legal Topics
Sentence, Reckless Grievous Bodily Harm, Disputed Facts, Intensive Corrections Order, Objective Seriousness, Provocation
Criminal Law Sentence Reckless Grievous Bodily Harm Disputed Facts Intensive Corrections Order Objective Seriousness Provocation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NSW DPP

Crown

Dian Tang

Offender

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with recklessness under s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900?
  2. 2 How should disputed facts concerning provocation, circumstances of the assault, and the level of objective seriousness be resolved?
  3. 3 Should an intensive corrections order (ICO) be imposed or a custodial sentence?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the seriousness of the offence (reckless grievous bodily harm), the number of blows inflicted, and the resulting injuries, the threshold for a custodial sentence was crossed under section 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. However, considering the offender's lack of prior criminal history, genuine remorse, low risk of reoffending, and positive steps toward rehabilitation, together with the assessment that a term of 18 months was appropriate after a 25% discount for the early plea, the Court found that community safety and sentencing objectives would be best met by the sentence being served by way of an intensive corrections order rather than full-time custody.

Court Disposition

The offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order, with additional conditions including community service and psychological treatment.

Orders

  • Of the offence under section 35(2) of the Crimes Act the offender is convicted.
  • The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, commencing on 28 January 2022 and expiring on 27 July 2023.