• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

On 3 August 2025, the offender and the two victims were at the upstairs dancefloor at Mooseheads Nightclub in Canberra City. The offender approached the first victim and pushed him with an outstretched arm, causing the first victim to step back. The offender then pushed the first victim to the chest. The offender and the first victim had a brief verbal exchange before separating. The second victim moved to stand next to the first victim.

The first victim’s injuries

7. The first victim attended hospital following the assault. Dr Ruprecht, a forensic medical officer, reported that the first victim suffered the following injuries: (a) Left nasomaxillary fracture; (b) Laceration to the left cheek; (c) Left periorbital (around the eye) and malar (cheek) haematoma; and (d) Swelling to the left cheek, periorbital region, nasolabial region and nasal bridge.

8. There was also a possible loss of consciousness and amnesia.

9. The first victim underwent surgery to attempt to restore cosmesis of the face and function of the nose. A metal plate was inserted and the laceration to his face was closed with medical glue.

10. Dr Ruprecht was of the opinion that a nasomaxillary fracture was more likely to have resulted from a punch to the face resulting in a secondary fall to the ground. He noted the injuries could have occurred simultaneously and from a single application of force.

11. Dr Ruprecht informed the Court that the long-term outcomes of the first victim’s injuries included persisting sensory changes, chronic pain, changes to the cosmetic appearance of the face, and nasal obstruction. Dr Ruprecht told the Court that direct force to the head, as well as a secondary fall, can cause head injuries of varying severity, the long-term effects of which could not be predicted at the time.

The victim impact statement

12. The first victim provided a victim impact statement in which he described the significant emotional toll that had been wrought by the offending, which include fear, anxiety, sadness, and difficulties in concentration. The first victim told the Court that the physical recovery process has been “painful and at times frustrating”. He still experiences lingering pain and discomfort. The first victim also suffered from financial impacts on himself due to medical appointments and time off work, and stress caused to his family and friends. As the first victim described, “the effects of this crime will stay with [him] for a long time”.

The offender

Background

13. The offender is 19 years old. He has no prior criminal history. He had a normal and happy childhood and continues to have a supportive relationship with his parents.

14. The offender commenced a school-based electrical apprenticeship during year 12. He is still working as an apprentice electrician, five days per week, with an additional half day on Saturdays each fortnight. Mental health

15. A comprehensive psychological evaluation report concerning the offender, dated 28 August 2025, was provided by Ms Ebony Anderson, psychiatric mental health nurse. In her report, Ms Anderson diagnosed the offender with Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, and a provisional diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (Level 1).

16. Ms Anderson informed the Court that the offender presented with “longstanding difficulties with attention, focus and memory”. She explained that, as the offender was not diagnosed or treated in early childhood, he is now “suffering the dire consequences of poor impulse control in adult life”. However, Ms Anderson considered that the offender’s insight into his difficulties, willingness to engage in treatment and practical skills provided a “strong foundation for improvement”.

17. The offender has completed three online psychoeducation courses, relating to anger management, impulse control and binge drinking. In a progress note from a consultation on 6 March 2026, Ms Anderson reported that the offender demonstrated “remarkable improvement” since commencing stimulant medication and engaging in counselling programs.

18. I am satisfied that the offender’s mental illnesses had a direct impact upon the offender’s impulse control, and provide some context for the offending. I find that there is some reduction of the offender’s moral culpability that arises from these conditions.

19. It is important to understand that it does not necessarily follow from a finding that an offender has reduced moral culpability that a lesser sentence will be imposed. The context or explanation for the offending which underlies this finding does not lessen the impacts of the offending on the victim, particularly the first victim, who has eloquently described the physical, emotional and financial ramifications of the offending upon him. The sentences to be imposed must recognise this harm. Nonetheless, the offender’s moral culpability remains a lens through which other purposes of sentencing, such as denunciation, general deterrence and rehabilitation, may be assessed. In the present case, there remains a need for the sentence to address the need for denunciation and general deterrence, although the weight to be given to these purposes will be reduced to a degree. The need to ensure rehabilitation is heightened.

Character references

20. The offender tendered three character references, including one from his parents and two from family friends. In their character reference, the offender’s parents acknowledge the seriousness of the offences. They describe the offending as “completely out of character” and say that it has been a “massive wake-up call” for the offender. The offender’s parents state that they are “committed to continuing to support and guide [the offender] to ensure this never happens again in the future and that he makes better choices”.

21. The offender’s family friends similarly describe the offending as out of character. They confirm that the offender has “extreme remorse” for his actions and say that the offender has shown “accountability” and “genuine commitment to personal growth”.

Remorse

22. In his interview with the author of the Pre-Sentence Report, the offender described feeling “deeply distressed” by his actions. He acknowledged the likely effect of his actions on the victim, the victim’s family and the wider community. The offender’s deep remorse is also confirmed in character references that have been tendered on his behalf, which I have already described. On the basis of those character references and the Pre- Sentence Report, I find that the offender is remorseful for the offending.

Plea of guilty

23. The offender entered pleas of guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, on the first mention of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

24. The prosecution submitted that the offender should not receive a “significant reduction” in the sentence to be imposed as the prosecution case was “overwhelmingly strong” (s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)). In particular, the prosecutor noted that offence was captured by CCTV footage and security personal remained with the offender until police arrived.

25. Senior counsel for the offender submitted that given the offender should still receive a 25% discount, notwithstanding the operation of s 35(4). Senior counsel submitted that the CCTV footage still left the offender “something to work with” if the case were to go to trial. In particular, he suggested that a question may have been raised about whether the prosecution had negated self-defence.

26. As I have previously observed, when reducing the discount to be afforded for a guilty plea, care must be taken not to penalise an offender for making full admissions of the allegations prior to the laying of charges. The making of full admissions is of greater utilitarian value than a guilty plea: it means that police are not required to investigate the offence, and the victim does not suffer the additional trauma which typically accompanies such an investigation. For these reasons, the making of such admissions should not be discouraged in any way (DPP v Weaver [2024] ACTSC 101 at [54]): In these circumstances, s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act must be considered alongside s 36, which enables the court to impose a lesser penalty where an offender has assisted law enforcement authorities. As Mossop J observed in DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 189 at [64]: The effect of s 35(4) would be to deny the offender a discount on account of the plea of guilty because of the strength of the prosecution case in circumstances where the strength of that case arose from voluntary admissions made by the offender. This would appear to be an outcome which was unfair and reflected no real sentencing purpose. However, s 35(4) must be read along with s 36 which permits a lesser penalty to be imposed where the offender has assisted in investigating the offence or assisted in a proceeding in relation to the offence. That must include the making of admissions that assist in the investigation or prosecution of the case against the offender. Nothing in the considerations in s 36(3) indicate that assistance in this form is not within the contemplation of the section. In circumstances where the offender would have been entitled to a reduction of 25 percent under s 35 but for the making of admissions that assisted the prosecution case, it is appropriate that he receive that discount by a combination of ss 35 and 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. See also DPP v Henry [2023] ACTSC 384 at [64] – [66].

27. In the present case, I assess the combined effect of the offender’s guilty plea (s 35 of the Sentencing Act) and the assistance that he provided by virtue of his full admission (s 36 of the Sentencing Act) as justifying a 25% reduction in the sentences to be imposed.

Comparative cases

28. The prosecution provided a table of comparative cases, which is annexed to this judgment. I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act. However, it is also necessary to bear in mind the limitations of such cases, particularly where the subjective and objective cases of the offenders and the offending differ from the case under consideration.

Determination

29. The offending against the first victim was deliberate and unprovoked. The offender punched the first victim in the face, an extremely vulnerable part of the victim’s body. The offender did not stop the assault after the victim fell to the ground. He continued to attack the first victim once the victim regained his feet, and was attempting to shield his face. The offending was spontaneous, and does not appear to have been motivated by anything other than the offender’s severe intoxication, which does not mitigate the seriousness of the offending. The first victim has suffered ongoing physical, psychological and financial harm as a result of the offender’s actions.

30. In his written submissions, senior counsel for the offender urged the Court to articulate where the present offending lies on the spectrum of objective seriousness, by reference to a range, that is, as low, medium or high range. Such labels are unnecessary, and often lack utility: Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 at [33] (per Beech Jones CJ at CL, as his Honour then was). Nonetheless, for an offence such as the present, where there are common features which affect the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, it is permissible to state where the offending lies on a spectrum of possible offending covered by the offence. Where the offender has sought a finding to this effect, it is not inappropriate for this finding to be made. Taking into account the matters that I have referred to above, I find that the offending against the first victim is within the mid-range of seriousness for offences of this type.

31. The offender is young. He had just turned 19 at the time of the offending. Although the offender was not a juvenile offender, authorities of this Court and in other Australian jurisdictions hold that youth justice principles continue to apply: Sarhene v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 79 at [25]. These authorities reflect neurodevelopmental research, which recognises that whilst “legal adulthood begins at age 18 years in Australia, key brain regions, especially those involved in decision-making, emotional control, and social understanding, continue to develop until at least age 25”: Jody Kamminga et al, Decision-Making, Emotion and Behaviour Regulation in 18-to-25 Year- Olds: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective (Bugmy Bar Book Report, 2025) 18.

32. Accordingly, as the prosecutor fairly conceded, the offender’s youth means that the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation should be afforded greater weight: s 133C(1) of the Sentencing Act; R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 at [39]

33. The s 10 threshold is crossed for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm (CAN 2025/9771). No penalty other than full-time imprisonment is appropriate in all of the circumstances, in relation to that offence

34. However, in view of the offender’s subjective case: his youth; the reduction of his moral culpability that arises from his mental illnesses; his remorse; and his commitment to engage in rehabilitation, it is not necessary that this sentence be served by way of full-time imprisonment. As the prosecutor submitted, it is important to impose a sentence that does not undermine the rehabilitation which the offender has embarked upon.

35. Accordingly, the sentence to be imposed for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm (CAN 2025/9771) will be imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, reduced by 25% to 1 year, 10 months and 15 days in recognition of the offender’s plea of guilty and his assistance to authorities. That sentence will be fully suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order.

36. A condition of the good behaviour order will be that the offender serve 25 hours of community service. This order will further ensure that the offender is held accountable for the offending and the harm which he has caused. In setting the number of hours to be served, I have taken into account the offender’s work commitments. The 25 hours of community service will take away some of the offender’s leisure time, but will not be so onerous as to interfere with his capacity to continue to engage in full time work, including on Saturdays as required.

37. The offending against the second victim (CAN 2025/9772) has given rise to a less serious charge than the offending against the first victim, because it did not result in the second victim being injured. Otherwise, the circumstances in which the offending occurred are relevantly identical. I assess the objective seriousness of the common assault as being slightly below the midrange of offences of that type. Taking into account the matters discussed above, the sentence to be imposed for the second offence of common assault will be a 9 month good behaviour order.

Orders

38. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (CAN 2025/9771), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year, 10 months and 15 days, commencing on 4 May 2026 and expiring on 18 March 2028. (2) The term of imprisonment is to be fully suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for the remainder of the sentence with the following conditions: (a) The core conditions (b) A community service work condition that the offender perform 25 hours community service within the term of the sentence (c) The offender accept supervision from the Director General of Corrective Services or their delegate, for the purpose of facilitating community service, and the term of supervision is only for the purpose deemed necessary by Corrective Services (3) For the offence of common assault (CAN 2025/9772), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a 9 month good behaviour order, commencing on 4 May 2026 and expiring on 3 February 2027

I certify that the preceding thirty-eight [38] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker . Associate: Date: 5 May 2026 ANNEXURE A – COMPARATIVE CASES

Case Counts and sentence Details

R v Waghorn [2019] Recklessly inflicting GBH – 2 • Plea of guilty ACTSC 72 years 2 months imprisonment, • Pushed victim to ground – hit NPP 18 months Loukas-Karlsson J head on ground • Injury – fracture to jaw, requiring surgery and two metal plates to be inserted • Offender 47 years old • Offender had prior history and was on conditional liberty • Evidence of childhood disadvantage and application of Bugmy principles

R v Hidic [2017] Recklessly inflicting GBH – 2 • Found guilty ACTSC 307 years, 7 months imprisonment • One punch to face of victim (by ICO), community service Murrell CJ condition 300 hours • Injury – fracture to eye socket, three chipped teeth, bruising and laceration to cheekbone requiring stitches. Dental work required. Double vision resulting in suspension of driver’s licence. Ocular surgery required. • Offender 21 years old • No criminal history

R v Myles [2017] Recklessly inflicting GBH – 1 • Plea of guilty ACTSC 194 year, 10 months imprisonment • One punch to lower jaw of (by ICO), community service Murrell CJ victim condition 249 hours • No provocation • Injury – jaw fracture in two places, surgery required with insertion of six screws and two plates • Offender 23 years old • Offender had no significant criminal history • Offender struggled with substance abuse (primarily alcohol) and evidence of rehabilitation in relation to this

R v Sharma [2016] Recklessly inflict GBH – 2 • Plea of guilty ACTSC 180 years, 3 months imprisonment • One punch to victim’s jaw, (to serve 9 months, remaining knocking him unconscious 18 months suspended) (severity appeal by • Injury – fracture to lower offender dismissed, see jawbone requiring insertion of Sharma v The Queen screws and a plate [2017] ACTCA 8) • Offender 20 years old • Offender had no criminal history and otherwise of excellent character