//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 162
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-05-22
Kelly AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Brown Citation: [2026] ACTSC 162 Hearing Date: 2 April 2026 Decision Date: 22 May 2026 Before: Kelly AJ Decision: See [43] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – property damage – Bugmy and Verdins principles – Griffiths Remand Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 312, 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 27 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 DPP v Fensom [2025] ACTSC 272 DPP v McConnell-Imbriotis [2023] ACTSC 256 DPP v Welsh (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 347 Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293 R v KS [2022] ACTSC 133; 18 ACTLR 160 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 Parties: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Amanda Lee Brown (Offender) Representation: Counsel L Taylor (DPP) E Wallis (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Number: SCC 306 of 2024 SCC 307 of 2024 KELLY AJ: Introduction
Amanda Brown, you are to be sentenced for two offences: (a) one count of property damage contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 6441/2024); and (b) one count of joint commission aggravated burglary with intent to cause harm contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (CAN 3956/2024).
You have also requested that the court take into account two further counts of common assault (CAN 3958/2024, CAN 3959/2024) and one count of damage property (CAN 3957/2024).
All of these offences were committed between 1 April 2024 and 2 April 2024. The victim was living in Evatt when she allowed you to stay with her at her residence for a number of days before telling you that you were no longer welcome to stay.
On or before 1 April 2024, it appears that you became aware or believed that the victim had started selling some of your belongings. When the victim returned home at approximately 6pm on 1 April 2024, she observed a broken window in the front of her house. When she entered her home, the victim observed two holes in the entrance door and holes in multiple walls throughout the house. She observed that her television set had been ripped from the wall as it appeared slanted and the television screen was smashed. The victim saw that the television in her bedroom had been smashed and cameras were scattered around the floor.
At some point earlier that day, you had attended the victim’s residence to collect your belongings. When the belongings were not out the front of the residence, you were allowed into the residence by a tenant living there at the time in order to try and find your belongings. When you were unable to find your belongings, you became upset and caused the damage to the residence observed by the victim on 1 April 2024.
The next day on 2 April 2024, the victim was at her home with her 18-month-old son when she heard a loud vehicle driving along the street outside. That was you and your co-offender, Mr Powell. You began to knock on the door and yelled out some obscenities to the victim, including “I want my shit” and “you’re a dead slut”. The victim replied in kind and told you to “fuck off”.
CCTV from the residence shows you kicking the front door of the residence repeatedly.
When the victim contacted 000, you could be heard in the background yelling and screaming and banging and kicking the door.
You and Mr Powell then walked around to the back of the residence and picked up an axe, which Mr Powell used to break a hole in the door. You began kicking the back door and you continued to swear and yell at the victim.
Once inside the residence, you tried to take hold of the baby by pulling him to remove him from the victim. You then told the victim that you would hold the baby whilst your co-accused “bashed her”. During this interaction, you swung your arms towards the victim, connecting twice with the victim’s face and causing the victim to suffer a split lip. The child had a number of red marks and bruises on his back, chest and legs as a result and was crying throughout the incident.
The victim then locked herself and the baby in the bathroom. You continued to kick at the bathroom door until the bottom right corner of the door broke and began to swing in. Shortly afterward, you and Mr Powell ran out of the front door of the residence carrying a black bag which contained the victim’s wallet, identification cards, Medicare card and approximately $150 in cash.
At the time when you committed these offences you were subject to a number of suspended sentences and good behaviour orders for offences of driving whilst disqualified, minor theft, joint commission of theft, joint commission make off without payment, joint commission damage property and common assaults.
You were also at that time subject to a 14 month aggregate intensive corrections order in New South Wales for taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner, failing to appear, driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified, shoplifting and stalking.
Objective seriousness
Your offending is very serious. You went to the residential property at a time when you knew that the victim was likely to be at home, you pre-planned the offending and enlisted the support of your co-offender, Mr Powell. Your motive was revenge for what you perceived as the victim’s unjustified behaviour towards you.
You then assaulted the victim and her 18-month-old son in their own home where the victim had to take refuge by fleeing to the bathroom and locking the door. You caused indiscriminate damage to the property, including multiple items within the house, and damage to the walls and doors. The whole episode must have been terrifying to both the victim and her young baby.
You were the driving force behind the offending of both you and your co-offender and you were responsible for most of the verbal and physical aspects of the assault.
Contrary to your counsel’s submissions, I consider your culpability in the offending to be much higher than your co-offender, notwithstanding his bad record.
The fact that you were on multiple suspended sentences in the ACT and on an intensive correction order in New South Wales at the time is another significantly aggravating factor on sentence.
Your criminal history is littered with numerous instances of behavioural offences, offences of dishonesty, assault and driving while disqualified.
The inherent seriousness of the offending on this occasion, together with the number of breaches of good behaviour orders and suspended sentences for the underlying offences which were in themselves serious, all militate towards the conclusion that immediate terms of imprisonment should be imposed.
Subjective Circumstances
However, I must and do take into account that your unfortunate background and history engage the principles enunciated in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 and Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. This is particularly so in light of the opinion of the forensic psychologist, Miss Tabitha Frew, as to the relevance of your undiagnosed mental health issues to all of the offending behaviour before this court.
Given that you were exposed to family violence during your childhood and you seem to have been suffering from a number of mental health disabilities from a very young age which affected your social ability to interact with others, it is little wonder that your first adult relationship involved severe abuse.
Ms Frew said in her report dated 20 March 2026 at page 11 that: Overall, the available material supports the conclusion that Ms Brown’s background has had a pronounced and ongoing bearing on her mental health, particularly in relation to trauma-related symptoms, substance dependence, interpersonal mistrust and emotional instability. Her background also contributed to the delay in receiving the diagnoses of Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in terms of understanding how disability affects her everyday functioning.
Ms Frew gave oral evidence at the sentencing hearing and explained why, in her opinion, a woman like Ms Brown at age 43 and with a history of being in and out of the criminal justice system for nearly 20 years might not have had the opportunity to be diagnosed accurately with the conditions which Ms Frew identified, namely Autism Spectrum Disorder level II and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ms Frew also diagnosed Ms Brown as having complex post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, secondary or caused by untreated post-traumatic stress disorder, methamphetamine use disorder and a previous history of opiate use disorder.
According to Ms Frew, the previous diagnosis of you as having a borderline personality disorder resulted in you receiving treatments targeted towards people with this disorder which, in her opinion, were not likely to be effective.
Ms Frew set out in her oral evidence an ongoing treatment plan which, if implemented, will substantially improve the prognosis for you.
I must say that, having listened to Ms Frew, I am somewhat sceptical of some of her opinions and some of her reasoning, particularly in so far as Ms Frew predicates your continued rehabilitation upon you being able to be effectively treated by a psychiatrist and receiving funding and support from the NDIS.
Ms Frew referred to recent research from the University of New South Wales that has looked at how ADHD medication impacts long-term methamphetamine users with a high dependence rate and found that the medication can significantly reduce that dependence or reliance. As far as I understood it, targeted and medically supervised doses of dexamphetamine similar, but not identical to, methylamphetamine can be effective.
I must also say that I have a similar degree of scepticism about that. Whether it is borne out in the long run is perhaps a matter for debate by better informed experts than me. However, I am not prepared to discount Ms Frew’s diagnosis and her key recommendations for this reason, namely because no one else and no other treatment which has been offered to you during the course of your dysfunctional life and encounters with the criminal justice system over the course of 20 years seem to have worked.
All I can do is look at what is before me and where you are at right now.
You are now 44 and have recently become a grandmother. You have passed the age where youth is a mitigating factor in your favour. Your pattern of behaviour and dysfunction over the past 20 years does not militate positively in your favour.
However, you were released on bail for these offences on 17 July 2024 and you have now been on bail for a very significant period of time without reoffending in any substantial or similar way. The reason for this, according to your counsel, is that you have finally obtained stable accommodation, you want to be involved in your grandchild’s life and you will have the support of appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment to address your long-standing mental illnesses.
I accept that, apart from a period of two months when you were in custody in New South Wales after you were arrested on a warrant for breach of the intensive correction order imposed in New South Wales, you have now been living in the community without disturbance or further offending, outside of two breaches of bail, since 17 July 2024.
Your counsel has asked me to make an order in the nature of a Griffiths remand to enable you to properly engage meaningfully in an informed way with ACT Corrective Services with a view to ultimately being able to qualify for an intensive corrections order. A Griffiths remand takes its name from Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293. Recent decisions of this Court have held that the court’s power to order a Griffiths remand survived the enactment of s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and, as a result, I am able to make a Griffiths remand, rather than sentence you to a deferred sentence order. See, for example, R v KS [2022] ACTSC 133; 18 ACTLR 160 at 164 [15]; DPP v McConnell-Imbriotis [2023] ACTSC 256 at [8] – [9]; DPP v Welsh (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 347 at [19].
Ms Wallis sensibly conceded that the best result which could be achieved for you is for you to be accepted as eligible to serve the term of imprisonment which must be imposed by way of intensive corrections order. Although your engagement during the assessment period was unsatisfactory for the reasons noted by the author of the intensive corrections report dated 23rd of March 2026, Ms Wallis submitted that the point has not yet been reached where the door to obtaining a favourable assessment has been closed.
Ms Frew has identified a pathway, if you are prepared to continue to engage with mental health professionals, which she believes will reduce your risk of reoffending from moderate to low. You already have stable accommodation which has been identified as one of the key requirements for your mental health recovery. In the past you have been in a cycle of offending followed by homelessness followed by more offending and then back into custody.
Another key factor in Ms Frew’s opinion is that you have not received appropriate treatment for your significant post-traumatic stress disorder which is both chronic and untreated and you have never received appropriate medication for your ADHD. If Ms Frew’s diagnosis and prognosis is correct then this may well be a watershed moment in your life. I am not prepared to disregard it as it seems to me that, with the appropriate support you now have around you and the fact that you have demonstrated that you are capable of leading a prosocial life in the community for a period of now nearly two years, this may well be your last chance.
In all of your circumstances at the present time, I consider that the purpose of rehabilitation must predominate in the sentencing process I am required to undertake. As her Honour Chief Justice McCallum observed in the recent case of DPP v Fensom [2025] ACTSC 272 at [26], “it has been acknowledged that rehabilitation is the most durable guarantor of community protection”.
In order for you to qualify for a positive assessment for an intensive corrections order you will, of course, be required to moderate your behaviour when interacting with ACT Corrective Services staff. You heard Ms Frew’s evidence about the genesis of your verbally aggressive behaviour with Corrections and what needs to happen in the next six months. It is really up to you now because the only way you will ever qualify for an intensive corrections order will be if you genuinely and conscientiously intend to abstain from illicit drug use.
There is no doubt that, in due course, the seriousness of your offending requires an immediate term of imprisonment. For the purpose of the order I intend to make this morning, I indicate that if you do not comply with the conditions of the remand order I intend to make that you can expect to be returned into custody. It is difficult to be precise about the length of time you may be required to spend in custody, however the head sentence will need to be in the order of three to four years and the non-parole period in the order of two years. I should make it clear that that is before necessary adjustments in relation to a 20% discount to which you will be entitled and other adjustments necessitated as a consequence of you breaching various suspended sentences and good behaviour orders in place at the time of the offending.
Although I acknowledge that the prosecution oppose the application for a Griffiths remand, both Ms Wallis and Mr Taylor cooperated to agree on certain conditions which must be part of the remand order.
For these reasons I make the following orders.
Orders
I certify that the preceding forty-three [43] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Kelly.
Associate: Date: 22 May 2026
DPP
Brown