District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baradi [2017] NSWDC 175 Hearing dates: 11th May 2017 Date of orders: 11 May 2017 Decision date: 11 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: For the offence of common assault following the breach of bond, the order suspending that sentence of imprisonment is revoked. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of eight months.. For the assault on Ms Poskovic, nine months' imprisonment. Both of those sentences are fixed terms. For the offence of aggravated break, enter and detain for advantage, I set a non-parole period of one and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years to date from 27 January 2017. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Breach of bond – On conditional liberty at time of offending - Domestic violence – Pre-meditated – Aggravated break, enter and detain for advantage – Common assault – Offender does not take responsibility for his offending Legislation Cited: s 112 of the Crimes Act Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown Paul Baradi Representation: Counsel: Mr D Drewett - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown File Number(s): 2015/3011912016/225692 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: One regrettably common feature of many offenders who appear for sentence for offences involving domestic violence is that they blame others for their criminal behaviour; there are some features of that attitude present in this case. In the pre-sentence report it appeared that whilst being interviewed by the author of that report the offender attributed his violent behaviour to being in the wrong kind of relationships. It is important that the offender, and in fact everyone in the community, understand that the only person responsible for his criminal behaviour is him, and him alone. 2. The offender was in an on and off type relationship with a young woman. On 24 July 2016 she was staying in a hotel in Manly. She was undertaking a training course at Frenchs Forest nearby. Other people taking the course and staying at the hotel were a man by the name of Henry Inwards, and a woman by the name of Kyle Sarah. 3. At about 8.30pm on 26 July the victim received a phone call from the offender, who said that he wanted to see her. Apparently - at least this is what the offender said in evidence - he wished to explain to her that he had not been cheating on her. Not unreasonably the victim told the offender that she was studying for her course. Mr Baradi did not take this well. He said, "I don't give a shit, you have to come here, if you don't I'm going to ruin your course. I will come to your hotel in the morning and wait for you so you can't go to the course." 1. Quite why the offender thought that he should threaten his former girlfriend in that way because he had an urgent desire to assure her that he was not cheating on her is difficult to understand. Eventually the victim hung up on the offender, but about half an hour later he was outside the hotel room. 2. There was a knock at the door. One of the people in the hotel room, Ms Sarah, walked to the door, looked through the peephole, recognised the offender, and told everyone else in the room who it was. The offender started to yell out the victim's name. His calls became louder and louder; the knocking continued to get louder and louder as well. Eventually he began to kick at the door. He kicked at the door with such force that he eventually broke the door lock and forced the door from its frame. He then went inside. 3. When he got inside he noticed that the victim was on her mobile phone. He took the mobile phone, afraid that police were being contacted. He then grabbed the victim by her wrist and began to walk out of the room, dragging the victim with him as he went. He moved about 20 metres from the room towards the lift. Hotel staff intervened; police were contacted. The offender let go of the victim and left the hotel. 4. As a result of those actions he is now to be sentenced for two offences, an offence of aggravated break and enter, and detain for advantage knowing that there were people inside. That is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of five years. There is also an offence of common assault; that relating to the actions of the offender in grabbing the victim by her wrist and holding on to her. The maximum penalty for that imprisonment is two years' imprisonment. I have taken into account the maximum penalties and where appropriate standard non‑parole period in formulating the appropriate sentence to impose in this matter. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period appear in these remarks on sentence. 5. The offender was arrested the following day and has remained in custody since then. His time in custody has not been a happy one. He has been subject to violence, and as a result of this he is held on protection. I take into account there this is a risk that he will continue to serve his sentence on protection, and there is a risk that that will involve harsher conditions of custody than would otherwise be the case. 6. I should mention at this stage that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offences I have already described; in fact he was on a suspended sentence of imprisonment after having assaulted his 70 year old uncle over a family dispute. That assault involved the offender hitting the victim in his head with a clenched fist and throwing him onto the ground. I should interpolate that the offender is a fit young man; the victim of that offence, his 70 year old uncle, is not. 7. Whilst it is a matter of aggravation of course that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offences in Manly, I have to be careful not to double count because I have been asked to deal with the breach of the bond arising out of the Local Court's imposition of the suspended sentences of imprisonment for the other offence of common assault. 8. The offender has an unfortunate history of offending; there are domestic violence related matters and other violent offences. Indeed, he was subject to suspended sentences of imprisonment for six matters in 2011. It seems fair to say that he did not respond terribly well towards the supervision that was part of those bonds, at least at first. 9. Mr Drewett concedes that nothing other than a sentence of full time custody is appropriate in the present circumstances. 10. The offender is supported by his parents; they are in court today. He also has a sibling, although has no contact with that person at the present time. At the time of offending he was living with his parents in Marrickville. He was on a carer's allowance having been looking after his father for about nine months. He has qualifications. He has completed an apprenticeship in carpentry and has worked in that area. He hopes to complete a building apprenticeship, which he started before going into custody, upon his release. 11. The offender appreciates that he has trouble with anger management and is willing to engage in courses and counselling in that regard. 12. The two primary offences were clearly premeditated. The offender made his initial demand at about 8.30pm and so had plenty of time to think about his actions before he knocked at the door, and then broke it down about half an hour later. I take into account also that there were multiple victims; three people were in the room that the offender burst into. On the other hand, the period of detention was relatively short. The circumstances of aggravation in this case is that he knew there were people inside the room when he burst into it; that is certainly not the least serious circumstance of aggravation covered by s 112 of the Crimes Act. 13. Similar things can be said about the serious indictable offence committed by the offender, detaining someone for advantage; that is certainly not the least serious indictable offence covered by the section. For those reasons I find that the aggravated break and enter is slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness. I make a similar finding regarding the common assault. 14. Mr Drewett submitted that there are reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, with that I would agree. The offender is a relatively young man, it is to be hoped that he will significantly change his attitude towards what has caused problems in his relationships in the past. It is not - and I return to where I started - the relationships, it is the offender himself. In any case the sentence I impose upon him will act as a significant deterrent to him acting in a similar way in the future. Domestic violence matters are almost always matters where general deterrence is important, and in this case specific deterrence is as well. Those two matters explain the length of the sentence I will shortly impose. 15. I should note that the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage to these offences and so the sentence I will announce will be 25% less than it would otherwise have been. 16. There are special circumstances in this case. It is the offender's first time in custody; there is a risk that he will serve all or part of it on protection; and then there of course is the necessity for there to be partial accumulation. I impose sentences as follows; 17. For the offence of common assault following the breach of bond, the order suspending that sentence of imprisonment is revoked. I impose a sentence of imprisonment of eight months to date from 27 July 2016. For the assault on Ms Poskovic, nine months' imprisonment to date from 27 October 2016. Both of those sentences are fixed terms because of the sentence I will now announce on the most serious matter. 18. For the offence of aggravated break, enter and detain for advantage, I set a non-parole period of one and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years to date from 27 January 2017. That means that the non-parole period will expire on 26 July 2018, upon which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 July 2017