DPP v Bradley

1. The offender, Mr Trinane Douglas Bradley, is to be sentenced for the following offence: (a) SC CAN2025/224: Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 13 years.

2. Mr Bradley participated in a sentencing conversation as part of the ACT Supreme Court Pilot Circle Sentencing List on 13 March 2026.

3. In DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 240 at [1]-[14], I explained in detail the context and purpose of the Circle Sentencing List. It is unnecessary to repeat that explanation here. Mr Bradley directly, respectfully and enthusiastically engaged with the Elders Panel and accepted responsibility for his conduct.

History of the proceedings

4. These proceedings have something of a long history. In part, explained by the offender absconding twice when admitted to bail. There was an 11-month unexplained delay in charging the offender with the offence and further delay arose out of initially unsuccessful negotiations between the parties, as well as the matter not being reached in a criminal trial period in September 2024. Most recently, after a grant of bail the offender failed to appear on 20 June 2025, and a warrant was executed on 29 November 2025. He was sentenced on 26 February 2026 in the ACT Magistrates Court for offences committed during the period he was subject to that warrant. The offender has spent a considerable period on remand for this offence the detail of which I will record further on in these remarks.

Agreed facts

5. The offender and the victim, [redacted], are acquaintances. The victim knew the offender as "Triggy” and had seen him around [redacted] over the course of the year preceding the incident.

6. Between 10:30am and 11am on Saturday the 6th of August 2022, the victim left his unit in [redacted] on [redacted].

7. [Redacted], who was the partner of the offender at the time, lived above the victim's unit. The victim attended [the offender’s partner’s] unit asked her for a cigarette. [His partner] advised she did not have one, but that she and the offender were going to the shops and they would bring him one when they got back. The victim left [the offender’s partner’s] unit, and [the offender’s partner] and the offender got ready to go to the shops.

8. Shortly before they left, they could hear the victim making racist comments directed towards the offender, words to the effect of "black dirty dog," and bringing up the offender's history of violence against [his partner], such as "you hit your woman with a baseball bat, come and hit me."

9. The offender and [his partner] left the unit complex and went to the local shops. When they returned, the victim was present at the unit complex and used derogatory words towards [the offender’s partner], calling her words to the effect of 'slut' or 'whore.’

10. This caused the offender to become angry, saying something to [his partner] to the effect that "he's bringing you into it, it's gone too far”.

11. The offender and the victim subsequently came across each other in the stairwell, and engaged in a short physical altercation, which spilled out into the carpark of [the unit complex].

12. While in the carpark, the offender grabbed a metal bar and struck the victim 2-3 times with the metal bar on the top and side of his face. The victim described the metal bar as roughly one metre long, black, and about an inch to an inch and a half thick. After being struck with the pole, the victim grabbed the offender by the hair and pulled him to the ground.

13. Two other males - one known to the victim as "[redacted]" and the other not known to him were in the courtyard at the time. The victim heard them calling out "fight, fight, fight" before they pulled the victim off the offender. The victim stood up and chased the offender as the offender ran around yelling at him, before running off into another residence. The victim then walked to the [redacted] shops.

14. At 12:55pm that day a member of the public called 000 upon observing a male bleeding profusely outside the Woolworths at the [redacted] shops. The victim had told her that he had been beaten with a metal pole.

15. Constable Alyce Mueck and Constable Keira White attended [redacted] shops and observed a male sitting on the ground while [redacted] was standing behind him applying pressure to the back of his head. Police observed that the male's face was covered in blood and that he was wearing a hooded jumper with a large amount of blood on it.

16. At about 1:14pm on the same date, ACT Ambulance Services (ACTAS) arrived at the [redacted] shops. A short time later, Constable White took seven photographs of the victim's injuries. Acting Sergeant Benjamin McCarthy arrived at approximately 1:20pm and observed the victim being treated by ACTAS officers. Soon after, ACTAS transported the victim to hospital. Constables Mueck and White and Acting Sergeant McCarthy then attended the victim's unit complex and conducted a door knock of the apartment above the victims.

17. At about 1:27pm that day, Acting Sergeant McCarthy spoke with [the offender’s partner] who told him that nothing had occurred at her unit and that she had been down at the shops. Constable White asked [the offender’s partner] if she knew someone by the name of “Triggy”, to which she replied that she knew "two Triggys, three Triggys, three or four Triggys”. This conversation was captured on body-worn camera. Police subsequently left the unit complex.

18. At about 2:52pm on the 6th of August 2022, Dr Amanda Barry attended Calvary Public Hospital to assess the victim. A short time later, Constable Mueck seized the victim's hooded jumper, which was later logged as exhibit item 503067/001.

19. The victim suffered the following injuries as a result of the incident: (a) Head and face injuries (i) A 9cm (approximately) curvilinear full-thickness laceration over the mid-parietal bone with underlying hematoma; (ii) A bruise 5cm in diameter and swelling over the left side of the occipital bone; (iii) A 1cm linear abrasion on the right side of the frontal bone; (iv) A 5cm bruise and swelling located over the right mid forehead; (v) A 2cm linear abrasion located over the right side of the forehead (vi) A 1cm partial thickness laceration located over the lateral aspect of the left side of the front bone (left temple); (vii) A 1cm by 1cm full-thickness laceration located over the left tragus. (b) Upper limbs (i) A 5cm by 1cm triangular shaped bruise and swelling located over the supinated (inner) right upper forearm; (ii) A 1cm curvilinear abrasion located on the right palm at the base of the fifth metacarpal; (iii) A bruise 1cm in diameter located on the supinated (inner) left upper forearm; (iv) A 2cm linear abrasion located on the supinated (inner) left mid forearm. (c) Lower limbs (i) A bruise 2cm in diameter located on the right upper knee; (ii) A cluster of 0.5cm to 1cm linear abrasions located on the right inner knee; (iii) An abrasion 1cm in diameter located on the left upper knee; (iv) A bruise 1cm in diameter located on the left inferomedial (inner) knee; (v) The full-thickness laceration that the victim sustained over his mid-parietal bone will result in permanent scarring. The full-thickness laceration to the victim's left ear and the partial-thickness laceration to his left temple will result in permanent scarring.

20. Forensic Medical Officer Dr Amanda Barry opined that: Blunt force trauma is the mechanism of injury for the aforementioned findings and an assaultive process is the most likely cause.

21. When the victim returned home after being discharged from hospital later that evening, he attended [the offender’s partner’s] unit looking for the offender with a baseball bat, saying words to the effect of "I'll fucking kill him" and "I am going to rip this door off." [The offender’s partner] did not answer the door, and the victim eventually left.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

22. The maximum penalty for this offence demonstrates it to be an objectively serious offence. In R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281 at [28], Murrell CJ observed that “the objective seriousness of the offence is to be assessed by reference to the culpability of the offender and the degree of grievous bodily harm that was occasioned”. The offence in Barron involved the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act which has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. Noting this offence has a lower maximum penalty, the following factors identified in Barron as influencing an assessment of the objective serious of the offence are nonetheless useful: (a) the motivation for the attack; (b) the degree of premeditation; (c) the victim’s vulnerability and defencelessness; (d) the type of weapon used; (e) the nature of the attack; and (f) whether the assault was committed in company.

23. The offender was motivated to engage in the offending because of his anger in the face of persistent derogatory and racist remarks aimed at him and his partner by the victim. I accept that the conduct was not planned or premeditated but rather was a spontaneous, reckless reaction by the offender to the victim’s racist abuse. Ms Edwige’s report, to which I will come, recorded the offender’s childhood experience of racism and his feelings of being targeted. The altercation with the victim commenced with mutual violence before the offender recklessly used the weapon to strike at the victim. I am satisfied that the offender did act after a degree of provocation from the victim, though as he himself accepted, his reaction was not proportionate or reasonable. Of course this does not justify the offender’s conduct, but it does explain it and the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) requires a sentencing court to consider whether the offending occurred in the context of provocation: see s 33(1)(q) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

24. The victim was struck to the head multiple times. The head is a vulnerable area of the body. The injuries included some permanent scarring to the victim’s scalp which can be readily observed because of his balding appearance. The victim has not been left with any permanent disability arising from the offence. Undoubtedly the injury would have caused the victim pain and suffering. Without seeking to undermine the victim’s experience of the injury suffered, it was an injury toward the lower end of the scale of injuries which amount to grievous bodily harm.

25. The features of the offence see it properly characterised as a moderately serious example of the offence.

Subjective circumstances

26. In summary, the material before me revealed that the offender is now a 31-year-old Noongar and Wiradjuri man, born in Perth. He moved to Canberra with his family when he was in high school. [Redacted]. The offender has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has a long history of substance misuse.

Vanessa Edwige’s Report

27. Ms Edwige prepared an extensive report about the offender dated 26 April 2025. This report provided insight into the key social, cultural and psychological issues faced by the offender.

28. The offender’s childhood experience saw him exposed to domestic violence, substance misuse, racism and interrupted schooling. Ms Edwige observed that the offender presents with early developmental adversity arising from those experiences. His father died in 2023. When he was a child, the offender’s father was involved in a traumatic car accident leaving him with a significant disability which put on a strain on the family environment. The offender experienced racism during his schooling as one of a small number of Aboriginal children in the school he attended. He described feeling “targeted by other students”.

29. The offender’s mother described his significant potential, especially in relation to his athletic prowess but also academically, as a young child. She reported that he was diagnosed with ADHD at 5 years of age. She lamented some of his choices as an adult. She was unaware of his schizophrenia diagnosis until a few years ago when she attended court in support of him. [Redacted]. She remains very supportive of the offender and hopes he can turn his life around. [Redacted].

30. Ms Edwige observed that the offender’s childhood experience was one which can have significant impact “on a child’s social and emotional well-being” and cited research held by the Bugmy Bar Book Project. She noted that the research suggests that childhood exposure to domestic and family violence (DFV) can result in a range of “impacts which can effect behaviour, schooling, homelessness, cognitive development, physical and mental wellbeing, poverty and result in intergenerational family violence. The impact of DFV can disrupt the formation of the infant/mother bond, and affected children have a greater likelihood of hospitalisation and mental health issues”.

31. The offender has a long history of substance misuse beginning in his teen years with cannabis use. The offender was exposed to substance misuse throughout his childhood. Ms Edwige noted that this experience increased “the likelihood that children will themselves develop substance abuse problems making it more probable that they will come into contact with the criminal justice system”. The offender has been in several relationships which were marked by substance misuse and violence.

32. The offender reported persistent feelings of paranoia. He expressed thoughts of self-harm to Ms Edwige at the idea of being further incarcerated. He has experienced significant loss with the death of his father, an uncle to whom he was close and an older cousin. He has a history of suicidal ideation. The offender has been a client of Winnunga Nimitijah Aboriginal Health Serivce since 2013 and was diagnosed with schizophrenia several years ago and prescribed Olanzapine.

33. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender was suffering from mental health impairments at the time of his offending which were clinically significant, namely schizophrenia and stimulant use disorder. These impairments negatively affected his capacity for sound decision making, considered judgment and emotional regulation. At the time of the offending conduct, the offender was not taking his medication and frankly reported to Ms Edwige that he was engaging in polysubstance use immediately prior to the offending.

34. Ms Edwige concluded that a treatment plan which included the following would be beneficial to the offender: (a) Stay connected with Winnuga, and their supports. (b) Engage with Yeddung Mura’s counselling services. (c) Continue to be supported by his mother. (d) Be supported to continue the buvidal program. (e) Be supported to apply for NDIS for his diagnosis of schizophrenia. (f) Remain compliant with his anti-psychotic medication.

35. Ms Edwige recorded her view that a custodial sentence would weigh heavily on the offender in light of his mental illness and the difficulty he has had in reintegrating into the community after past periods of incarceration. The offender is particularly concerned to re-establish his relationship with his child.

36. Ms Edwige recorded the offender’s genuine remorse for his offending conduct and that he is willing to engage in supports that will enhance his psychological and emotional wellbeing. Ms Edwige concluded engagement in such supports would have a positive impact on his ability to develop prosocial coping skills and stress tolerance for unpleasant thoughts and feelings.

Mental health reports

37. Mental health reports prepared by Canberra Health Services in December 2025 and February 2026 detailed some of the background of the offender’s struggles with substance use and mental ill health over a long period. The offender’s vulnerability to future psychotic symptoms “most likely in the context of substance use” was noted. The offender was assessed as having “reasonable insight” into his mental health challenges and he acknowledged the long-term detrimental effects of substance use. Pre-sentence report, 30 April 2025, Intensive Correction Order Assessment report, 29 April 2025 and Court Duty report, 25 February 2026

38. All court ordered reports confirmed much of the background history included in Ms Edwige’s report.

39. Drug and alcohol use was consistently identified as a major challenge for the offender. The offender disclosed a chronology of substance misuse, starting with cannabis use at 16 years old which escalated to daily use by 18 years of age and moved to “ice” use from age 18, which also developed into a daily habit.

40. The authors of these reports recorded that the offender had engaged positively with Yeddung Mura counselling, though noted his history of poor compliance with community-based orders. He was observed to express remorse and accept responsibility for the offending.

41. In the reports from 2025, the offender was assessed as being a high risk of re-offending due to his unresolved drug use, unemployment, antisocial attitudes, peer association and complex mental health needs.

42. The offender was found unsuitable for an intensive correction order, largely arising from his unaddressed dependence on illicit substances.

43. The most recent court duty report recorded that the offender had expressed his willingness to comply with any obligation imposed upon him as part of the sentence and reiterated that he accepted responsibility for his offending conduct. This report assessed him as being a medium to high risk of general reoffending and requiring support to address the area of risk.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

44. The offender tendered a handwritten letter to the court and the Elders Panel which expressed regret and remorse for the offending and the effect upon the victim. The offender accepted that he “went too far” stating he “just snapped” as he had “had enough” of the victim’s racist harassment of him and his partner. The offender offered an unequivocal apology to the victim and acknowledged the effect of his offending on his own family.

45. The views expressed by the offender in the letter were consistent with his engagement in the sentencing conversation and the observations made of him by the authors of court ordered reports. I am satisfied that the offender has expressed genuine remorse and accepted responsibility for his conduct.

46. During the circle sentencing conversation, the offender expressed his frustration about the delay which has attended to the resolution of this matter. He was passionate about his intention to get his life on track, be strong for his daughter and remain abstinent from drug use. The offender acknowledged that he requires support and assistance to address these challenges in the community. The offender cited his motivation to be a good father and son as well as his weariness of being incarcerated as driving his desire for reform.

47. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience explains to a significant degree his resort to violence in the face of a degree of provocation by the victim. Whilst a causal connection between the offender’s childhood deprivation and his offending conduct is not necessary to establish before it can be given “full weight” (see Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44]) in this instance many of the effects of the offender’s childhood experience catalogued by Ms Edwige can be seen in the conduct now before this Court; emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, poor decision making. The effect of the offender’s childhood experience is such that he should not bear the same degree of responsibility as an offender who did not have the same negative experiences in childhood. Accordingly, the offender’s moral culpability ought to be reduced.

48. I accept that the offender is genuine in his desire to “turn his life around”. This will undoubtedly require him to substantially address his use of illicit substances and engage in treatment to stabilise his mental health. The offender has struggled in the past to comply with community-based orders and as I have already recorded, absconded twice whilst on bail.

49. It is beyond doubt that the offender will require significant support to address the risk factors which bring him into contact with the criminal justice system. If the offender could achieve abstinence from drug use, his capacity to stabilise his mental health would dramatically increase. The recommendations made by Ms Edwige provide a solid foundation for rehabilitative progress if the offender can comply. Should he comply, his potential for rehabilitation would greatly improve.

Plea of guilty

50. In December 2023 in the context of negotiations between the parties, the offender accepted a “tentative counteroffer” made to him by the Director’s office to plead guilty to the offence for which I am now to sentence him. This was ultimately rejected by the Director. In January 2024, the matter was then committed for trial to this Court. In January 2025, the Director accepted the offender’s plea of guilty to the exact same offence he had indicated a willingness to plead guilty to and significant amendments were made to the statement of facts.

51. The offender produced a detailed timeline of negotiations. It is unnecessary to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that the Director confirmed in August 2024 that a plea of guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm would be accepted and that this was the substance of the ‘counteroffer’ accepted by the offender in December 2023 when the matter was still in the Magistrates Court.

52. Quite properly in my view, the prosecutor conceded that in the circumstances a 25 per cent reduction in the sentence was appropriate.

Criminal history

53. The offender has a lengthy criminal history which includes convictions for several offences which involve violence. He also has convictions for drug offences, driving offences, failing to appear, property offences and weapons offences. His criminal history disentitles him to leniency.

Time in custody

54. In total, the offender has spent 409 days on remand in relation to this offence. A further 30 days on remand was imposed as a sentence of full-time imprisonment when the offender was sentenced in February 2026 in the Magistrates Court. I take the entire period on remand into account when considering the totality principle, though the sentence I impose will be backdated to take account of the pre-sentence custody referrable to this offence only.

Hardship in custody

55. On 3 May 2025, the offender was violently assaulted in custody and he suffered serious injuries. He was hospitalised for several days. The violence he was exposed to is a hardship in custody relevant to determining the sentence to be imposed (see Henderson v The King [2024] ACTCA 3 at [59]-[67]).

56. The offender’s counsel sensibly submitted that I would be satisfied that any further term of full-time custody would weigh more heavily on him in circumstances where the perpetrators of the assault may remain in custody and there has been some psychological effect upon him following the attack.

57. In a letter dated 7 May 2025, Dr Isherwood of The Canberra Hospital detailed the injuries occasioned to the offender: (a) Traumatic acute left parieto-occipital subdural haematoma (requires ongoing assessment); (b) Excessive facial bone fractures; and, (c) Right eye traumatic iritis and mydriasis.

58. The circumstances of the attack remain unclear, and no charges have been laid. I cannot conclude that the attack on the offender had any connection to his offending against the victim such that his injuries could be considered “extra-curial punishment” (see Silvano v R [2008] NSWCCA 118 at [34]-[35] and R v Yuen [2019] ACTSC 70).

59. On the evidence before me, I accept that the attack and subsequent injuries brought about a circumstance of hardship for the offender and I am satisfied that a further term of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the offender as a result.

Current sentencing practise

60. I was taken to several sentencing outcomes for offending of this kind by the offender. I have had regard to them and bear in mind that comparable outcomes assist to promote consistent application of sentencing principle. The matters drawn to my attention included DPP v Hicks [2025] ACTSC 15, R v Gardner [2022] ACTSC 36, R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157, R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] ACTSC 35 and R v Torbert [2015] ACTSC 331.

61. I observe, consistent with the broad spectrum of injury that can constitute grievous bodily harm, the circumstances within which it can be inflicted and the variation in subjective factors of offenders, that the outcomes varied considerably.

Determination

62. The only appropriate outcome for the offending is a period of full-time imprisonment. No submission was advanced to the contrary.

63. My finding that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced diminishes, though does not extinguish, the weight of punishment and general deterrence. I am satisfied that specific deterrence has been affected to some degree by the significant period the offender has already spent in pre-sentence custody, though the effects of the offender’s disadvantaged background heighten the need for community protection.

64. There was a sound basis for the conclusion that the offender was unsuitable for ICO. His circumstances since that assessment have not shifted to such an extent that his suitability warrants revisiting. The risk of institutionalisation is real for this offender given the substantial period he has been incarcerated over the course of his life and the struggle he experiences when released back into the community. If he is able to meaningfully engage with supports designed to assist him to address his drug use and stabilise his mental health, rehabilitation remains a realistic goal for this offender. Despite my conclusion that the offender’s desire for reform is genuine, there is a need to ensure that a regime of support and accountability is in place to give him the best chance of giving effect to his aspiration and in turn, guarding community safety. This conclusion supports an outcome that will see the offender supervised for a lengthy period.

65. The starting point for the offence SC CAN2025/224 is 30 months of imprisonment reduced to 24 months of imprisonment in recognition of the offender’s plea of guilty.

66. A non-parole period is the minimum period that justice demands an offender serve before release to the community. The same considerations which attend to an assessment of the appropriate penalty are relevant for the purposes of assessing the appropriate non-parole period. There is, as I have already identified, a need for the offender to have a lengthy period of supervision to ensure that any difficulties he might experience transitioning to life in the community are swiftly addressed and I will set the non-parole period accordingly.

Orders

67. For those reasons, I make the following orders: (a) On the charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (SC CAN2025/224), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment commencing on 25 February 2025 and ending on 24 February 2027. (b) The non-parole period will commence on 25 February 2025 and end on 9 April 2026.

I certify that the preceding sixty-seven [67] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: P Beohm Date: 10 April 2026