R v Smolinksi; R v Steele [2020] NSWDC 651

R v Smolinksi; R v Steele [2020] NSWDC 651

Both Smolinski and Steele participated in serious violent offending resulting in permanent injury to the victim and prolonged detention. The objective seriousness of both offences fell within the middle of the established range. Both offenders’ backgrounds of significant mental health and substance use disorders justified moderation of otherwise appropriate sentences, and special circumstances warranted extension of parole periods. Steele’s higher culpability in the infliction of grievous bodily harm and more extensive criminal history justified a longer aggregate sentence than Smolinski.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Sentencing / Sentence Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Aggregate sentences of imprisonment imposed on both offenders, with special circumstances recognised and non-parole periods set accordingly.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'co Offenders' 'aggravated Detain' 'recklessly Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'mental Health' 'drug Addiction' 'aggregate Sentences' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'objective Seriousness']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'co Offenders' 'aggravated Detain' 'recklessly Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'mental Health' 'drug Addiction' 'aggregate Sentences' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'objective Seriousness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Sentencing / Sentence Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What are the appropriate sentences for each offender for the offences of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company and specially aggravated detain in company with intent to commit serious indictable offence?' 'How should the court assess objective seriousness, parity, and totality for these co-offenders?' 'What relevance do mental health and drug addiction have to mitigation or aggravation of sentence in these circumstances?']

Ratio Decidendi

Both Smolinski and Steele participated in serious violent offending resulting in permanent injury to the victim and prolonged detention. The objective seriousness of both offences fell within the middle of the established range. Both offenders’ backgrounds of significant mental health and substance use disorders justified moderation of otherwise appropriate sentences, and special circumstances warranted extension of parole periods. Steele’s higher culpability in the infliction of grievous bodily harm and more extensive criminal history justified a longer aggregate sentence than Smolinski.

Court Disposition

Aggregate sentences of imprisonment imposed on both offenders, with special circumstances recognised and non-parole periods set accordingly.

Orders

  • ['Smolinski: Convicted on both offences; aggregate sentence of five years imprisonment commencing 15 May 2020, expiring 14 May 2025, with a non-parole period of three years (to 14 May 2023).' 'Steele: Convicted on both offences; aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment commencing 1 July 2019, expiring 30 June...