DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 90

[2026] ACTSC 90

Supreme Court of the ACT|2026-04-07|Before: Taylor J

View on the ACT Courts

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of the ACT

Decision date

2026-04-07

Before

Taylor J

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List
– Elders and Respected Persons Panel – joint commission aggravated
burglary – joint commission theft – aggravated

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List– Elders and Respected Persons Panel – joint commission aggravatedburglary – joint commission theft – aggravatedassault occasioningactual bodily harm – offending on conditional liberty – parityprinciples – Bugmy considerations – reduction in moralculpability – period of imprisonment imposed suspended upon entering intoa good behaviourorder

Judgment

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 90 Hearing Date: 2 October 2025; 11 March 2026 Decision Date: 7 April 2026 Before: Taylor J Decision: See [148]. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission theft – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – offending on conditional liberty – parity principles – Bugmy considerations – reduction in moral culpability – period of imprisonment imposed suspended upon entering into a good behaviour order Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 45A, 308, 312 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 36 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 DPP v Bird (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 74 DPP v Wren (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 163 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Brown (Offender) Representation: Counsel B Chifuntwe (2 October 2025); G Meikle (11 March 2026) (DPP) A Doig (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) InPrivate Law (Offender) Elders: R Blakeney R Scott P McGrady S Walker File Number: SCC 99 of 2025 SCC 415 of 2025 TAYLOR J: Introduction

The offender, Mr Anthony Brown, is to be sentenced for the following offences: (a) Series 1 (i) CC2024/5199: Joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or 2000 penalty units. (b) Series 2 (i) CC2024/5770: Joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or 2000 penalty units. (ii) CC2024/5771: Joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or 2000 penalty units. (iii) CC2024/5772: Joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or 2000 penalty units. (iv) CC2024/5773: Attempt joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to s312 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of ss 44 and 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years and/or 2000 penalty units. (v) CC2024/6192: Joint commission theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years and/or 1000 penalty units. (vi) CC2024/6193: Joint commission theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 45A of that same Act, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years and/or 1000 penalty units. (c) Series 3 (i) CC2024/9213: Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (FV), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years.
Mr Brown participated in the Supreme Court circle sentencing pilot program. 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. Suffice it to say that the process required Mr Brown to directly engage with the Elders Panel and to take responsibility for his offending conduct and the harm he has caused using his own voice.
Mr Brown genuinely engaged in that process which saw him explore some of the challenges which have contributed to his offending behaviour and identify how he can address those challenges upon his release to the community.

At about 8:20pm on Thursday 2 May 2024, Ms U (‘the victim’), Ms I, and Ms I’s sons Master B and Mr M were at Ms I’s residence in [redacted], ACT. The victim is a friend of Master B and Mr I and had arranged to stay at the residence that night.
The residence is a small brick house with steps leading to a small landing at the front door of the residence, which leads to a living room with a large couch at the rear of the room. On the left side of the living room is a small doorway which leads to a shared living room and kitchen area. The bedrooms of the residence are situated behind the kitchen.
Around 8:25pm that day, Ms I was in the living room of the residence when she heard shouting emanating from the front yard of the residence, including words to the effect of “[Ms U] get the fuck out here, [Dylan] wants to speak to you”.
The residence has a closed-circuit television camera installed overlooking the front yard. Ms I looked through the camera and observed several people standing in front of the residence, one of whom was carrying what Ms I believed to be a baseball bat.
Ms I immediately recognised the co-offender “Dylan Bird” (‘co-offender Bird’).
The victim later identified the co-offenders; Ms “Deidrie Wren” (‘co-offender Wren’), Mr Anthony Brown (the offender) and Ms Delphine Reid (‘co-offender Reid’) to police.
Co-offender Wren is the sister of the victim. Co-offender Wren is described as a heavy-set aboriginal female, with long black hair wearing a grey-coloured full length hooded coat.
The offender is the brother of the victim, described as an aboriginal man with a medium build and facial hair.
Co-offender Reid is the mother of the victim, described as a middle-aged female with shoulder length curly black hair that appears wet. At the time of the incident, she was wearing a Long green Kathmandu jacket that extended to her ankles.
The offender and co-offenders were all shouting for the victim to exit the residence.
Ms I walked to the rear of the residence where she located the victim in a bedroom with Mr M and Master B.
Ms I and the victim both walked to the front door of the residence, whilst Mr M and Master B observed the victim and Ms I from near the kitchen, approach the front door.
At this time, the offender and co-offenders were on the landing just outside the front door.
The victim opened the front door to the residence, with the expectation that the screen-door behind it was locked. She intended to speak with the offender and co-offenders through a locked screen-door.
Unbeknownst to the victim, the offender and co-offenders had pried open the screen door, leaving it unsecure.
As the victim unlocked and slightly opened the front door, the offender and co-offenders used significant force to barge through the door, causing the door to swing violently open, striking the wall adjacent to the door hinge.
The force used to open the door was enough to cause the victim to be thrown backwards into the living room. Ms I was also knocked backwards causing her to stumble into the living room.
Immediately, co-offender Bird ran through the door and proceeded towards the victim. At this time, he was carrying a wooden, rounded baseball bat approximately 60 centimetres in length and black in colour with a timber handle.
The victim shouted for the offender and co-offenders to leave and not to hurt her. She raised her legs and kicked in the direction of the offender to defend herself.
Co-offender Bird raised the baseball bat and forcefully struck the victim on the right side of the torso, just underneath her ribcage. Ms I and Mr M observed this assault.
As this occurred, co-offender Reid ran to the living room and aggressively demanded Ms I and her sons to go towards the back of the house, away from the victim. They complied with the request.
Co-offender Bird continued to chase the victim around the lounge room floor of the residence. He continued to strike at her whilst she shouted at him to stop.
The victim was able to lift herself from the floor onto the living room couch, at which time co-offender Wren approached her and punched her forcefully to the torso. The victim sat on the couch and raised her legs before continuing to kick at co-offender Bird and co-offender Wren.
This assault was observed by Ms I who was still being ushered towards the rear of the house.
As she was ushered away, Ms I loudly proclaimed that due to the audible volume of the disturbance Police would surely be on their way to the location.
In response to this, the offenders began retreating from the residence towards the front door, before departing onto the street.
Ms I and the victim heard loud banging from the front of the residence. Ms I formed the suspicion that this sound was co-offender Bird striking the baseball bat against the railing of the front stairs, power box and gauze door.
Once the offenders had left the residence, the victim called police.
Police arrived at the residence at about 8:29pm that day. Ms I participated in a record of conversation.
At about 10:30pm that day the victim participated in an ‘evidence in chief interview’ with police. The victim identified co-offender Bird as the individual who hit her with the bat, and co-offender Wren as her other attacker, with the other offenders present in the house at the time.
At no time did Ms I or the victim give anyone permission to assault them.
At no time did the victim, Ms I, Master B or Mr M provide the offender or any co-offender permission to enter or remain in the residence.

On Monday 13 May 2024, at or about 1:30am three males approached Café Beetroot on foot. The males were described as follows: (a) Male one, was of large solid build with tanned complexion, with short dark hair, wearing a large dark puffer jacket, light shorts, gloves, a dark facemask and Adidas branded sneakers. (b) Male two was shorter and had a slim build with a tanned complexion, with short dark hair, wearing a yellow hooded jumper tied around his head, a t-shirt and puffer vest, with tracksuit pants and sneakers. (c) Male three was tall and slim, wearing a black facemask, hoodie, Puma branded tracksuit pants, gloves and sneakers.
Male one was later identified to be Peter Crawford herein referred to as co-offender Crawford; Male two was later identified to be the offender; and Male three remains unidentified herein referred to as co-offender two.
Co-offender Crawford forced entry using a screwdriver to pop the front door open. The offender and the two co-offenders entered. CCTV captured the offender state "I've got the door, boys go, go go." As co-offender two entered the store, he was carrying a large dark coloured crowbar.
CCTV captured Co-offender two state "The till is gone, it's not there." Co-offender Crawford replied "Nah I know”.
The offender was further observed to have a dark shadow line across the top of his top lip, consistent with a closely shaved moustache. The offender had the arms of the yellow jumper tied at his chin, in an attempt to conceal the lower part of his face.
Police had previously observed the offender to have strong facial hair along his jaw line consistent with a 'neck beard.' Due to the distinctive nature of this facial hair, Police suspect the offender was attempting to conceal this part of his face.
Inside the café the offender lowered the jumper around his head to be under his chin, which allowed all his facial features to be captured. The offender had short cropped dark hair with a small tuft that stood up at the front, a broad nose, and thick fluffy eyebrows. The offender's chin and lower 'neck beard' was visible.
The offender stood at the door and was keeping watch while co-offender Crawford and co-offender two were searching the café for approximately two minutes. The offender searched a cabinet, picked up a miscellaneous item and then put it back. The three co-offenders then exited the same door they initially entered. Minor damage occurred to the front door lock.
The theft offence (CC2024/6192) identified that $345 and a till was stolen to the total value of $545.00.

Moments later, the offender and co-offender's loitered outside of On the Grind Café. Co-offender Crawford approached the door with a screw driver and jimmied the lock before using force to push and pull the glass doors causing it to break inward.
The offender and co-offenders then entered the store. The offender again stayed at the door and kept watch while co-offender Crawford and co-offender two searched the store.
Co-offender Crawford and co-offender two moved to the service desk and back room while the offender stayed as look out at the front of the café. During this time the offender pulled a vehicle key out of his vest pocket several times and touched the door handle with no gloves on. Co-offender Crawford checked the cash tray that was left on the counter, and the till, while co-offender two grabbed the safe valued at approximately $400.00, from the back room, before they fled.
The offender and co-offenders were inside the café for less than 40 seconds.
The offender and co-offenders fled the scene towards a back carpark before they drove off in a flat-tray Ute, which was last sighted heading north towards Drakeford Drive, Kambah in the ACT. About 2:40 am, Blackhawk security notified Mr H, who in turn notified Police of the burglary at On the Grind Café, Kambah.
Police attended the location a short time later, observed the broken from doors, and requested Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) Forensic Officers to attend and process the scene.
About 6:00am that same day, Ms L and Mr K attended Café Beetroot and noticed that it had been disturbed overnight. Ms L and Mr K did not notice anything significant stolen, as they do not keep cash on the premises. Ms L and Mr K attended the Tuggeranong Police Station to report the burglary.
About 8.00 am, that same day Ms D reported the burglary at Zucchini Bro's to police.
A short time later, Mr B received a text from workers to say there had been an attempted break in and the rear door to the premises was damaged. Mr B reported it to Police.
Later that same morning, Police attended all burglaries, and collected CCTV footage from all incidents. Police had cause to review the CCTV footage, which depicts the aforementioned incidents.
Police compared the clear CCTV footage to lawfully held images of the offender. Police were satisfied with the Offender's identity, as his appearance matched that of lawfully held images.
At no time did Mr H, Ms L and Mr K, Ms D, or Mr B give permission for anyone to enter their commercial businesses, to take items, or to damage property.

Ms C and offender have been in an intimate relationship for at least seven years. This relationship is a relevant relationship as defined under the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT).
About 2:50pm on Saturday 7 September 2024, Ms C, in the company of her grandfather, Mr N and her 18 month old son, Master C, left their residential address of [redacted] and walked a short distance to the right of the address, to a nearby bus stop.
A short time later, the offender also left the address, and sat next to Ms C at the bus stop, where he attempted to initiate a verbal altercation.
A short time later, Master C ran away from the bus shelter, causing Mr N to follow him.
Once Master C and Mr N were out of sight, the offender stood up, and raised his right hand, before striking Ms C in the face with force. This caused at least three of Ms C’s teeth to break off. Ms C’s nose also began bleeding immediately, causing her significant pain.
Mr N, the grandfather of Ms C, heard the noise of the hit, and subsequently approached Ms C and the offender. The offender then ran away from the location.
A short time later, Mr C contacted ACT Policing Communications and requested Police attendance at the residence.
A short time later, Police attended the residence, and observed Ms C’s front teeth to be missing, with blood corning from her nose. Ms C’s face was red, and she had swelling to her top lip and nose.
Ms C participated in a Family Violence Evidence in Chief (‘FVEIC’), to which she disclosed the aforementioned events.
About 3:30pm on Monday 9 September 2024, Police attended [redacted] in the ACT for an unrelated matter, when they located a young male of First Nations descent hiding under a mattress in one of bedrooms at that location.
Police immediately recognised the young male to be the offender, who identified himself as Anthony Brown. Police confirmed the offender's identity through lawfully held digital images on Police indices and were satisfied that the images held on those indices was the offender.
Checks conducted on Police indices showed the offender was currently in breach of his bail undertaking for being at the location at this time, and wanted for the incident that occurred on Saturday 7 September 2024.
About 3:40pm, the offender was taken into custody for breaching condition one and two of his bail undertaking. The offender was then cautioned.
The offender was conveyed to the ACT Regional Watch House, where he was lodged. The offender was offered the opportunity to participate in a Digital Record of Interview, to which he declined.

The offence was committed at a residential address by four co-offenders. The victim was present along with her child and two other adults. The victim was herself a child at the time of the offence, being 16 years old.
The offending involved threats of violence and the use of actual violence. A baseball bat was wielded, and loud threats were directed to the occupants of the residence including “[Ms U] get the fuck out here, [Dylan] wants to speak to you”. After the victim unlocked the front door with the intention of addressing the offenders through the screen door, the co-offenders forced the screen door open, striking the victim in the process. The screen door was damaged when force was used to gain entry to the premises.
Two co-offenders inflicted violence on the victim in the presence of a child. The victim was struck repeatedly with a weapon capable of inflicting significant harm by co-offender Bird. She was also punched and kicked by co-offender Wren.
The offending was not sophisticated though required some level of organisation in order that the offenders travel to the premises together and have a weapon for use.
The offender’s role was limited and far less significant than that of co-offenders Bird and Wren. The offender did not perpetrate any actual violence nor make any direct threats of violence. His presence contributed to the environment of fear which facilitated the commission of the offence and the sense of fear undoubtedly experienced by the victim and the other occupants of the residence. Joint commission aggravated burglaries (CC2024/5770, CC2024/5771, CC2024/5772), joint commission theft (CC2024/6192, and CC2024/6193) and attempt joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5773)
The prosecutor submitted that these offences were “typical” examples of this kind of offence. Against the background of that submission, I make the following observations.
Each offence was committed at a commercial premises. No employees or members of the public were present when the offences were committed. The offenders gained entry using a screwdriver for CC2024/6770. The attempt offence (CC2024/5773) involved the use of a crowbar.
Each burglary involved some damage to the doors of the premises where entry was gained or attempted.
CC2024/6192 and CC2024/6193 involved property valued at the lower end of the scale being $545.00 and $400.00 respectively. The offending was largely unsophisticated though undoubtedly caused stress and inconvenience for the business owners involved.
In each of the burglary offences, the offender’s role was less than that of co-offender Crawford. While the offender did enter the premises for a short period for the successful burglary offences, on each occasion he had a role of ‘keeping watch’. For the attempt offence, the offender similarly ‘kept watch’ while the other co-offenders attempted entry.

A pre-sentence report authored by ACT Corrective Services on 9 April 2025 recorded that Mr Brown experienced a “difficult up bringing”. The author concluded that some members of his family were antisocial influences. The offender reported an ADHD diagnosis as a child and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He reported that he was not accessing prescription medication though had sought support to explore eligibility for support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
The author of the PSR determined that the offender was a high risk of re-offending taking into account his limited employment, education and antisocial associates. The author concluded that the offender was remorseful for his conduct and willing to engage in rehabilitation.
The report assessed the offender as suitable for a high level of intervention by ACT Corrective Services with a focus on drug and alcohol rehabilitation and referral to an employment provider.
Several intensive correction order (ICO) assessment reports were prepared. The most recent from January 2026. In summary, these reports detailed that the offender’s time on remand had at times been challenging because of consistent disciplinary action arising from his poor engagement with others in the custodial environment. The offender was considered to have demonstrated notable commitment to his employment as a cleaner.
The offender’s poor history of compliance with community-based court orders including by the commission of fresh offences was noted. The January 2026 report author observed that the offender had taken positive steps to address his criminogenic risk factors more recently including by partial participation in an alcohol and drug program, engagement in a literacy program and involvement in cultural programs. Notwithstanding those positive steps offender tested positive for illicit substances in January 2026.
The offender expressed motivation for positive change, including abstinence from alcohol and drugs as well as an intention to engage with programs in the community aimed at strengthening his cultural connection and addressing his offending behaviours.
He was ultimately assessed as unsuitable for an ICO.

In a report dated 21 September 2025, psychologist Ms Vanessa Edwige comprehensively recorded the offender’s background and made several recommendations.
The report recorded that the offender is a 23-year-old Wiradjuri man. He was born in Canberra and he has numerous siblings. He does not know his biological father. He reported to Ms Edwige that his mother used methamphetamine and alcohol when she was pregnant with him. As a result, the offender has cognitive difficulties which have resulted in several challenges including struggles with literacy. The offender is a recipient of a disability support payment.
Ms Edwige summarised the offender’s chaotic childhood experience which involved exposure from a young age to domestic violence and drug use. [Redacted].
The offender’s education was negatively affected. He was regularly suspended for fighting and often felt that he was the target of racism. He had learning difficulties though he enjoyed sport, especially football.
[Redacted].
After a period living with his brother and maternal grandparents in Griffith, NSW at 17 years of age the offender moved back to live with his mother after she was released from a period of imprisonment. His mother’s new partner was violent, and the couple engaged in illicit substance use.
The offender met his own partner when he was 17 years old. They have a two-year-old son together. He describes his partner’s mother as his “second mother”.
Ms Edwige described a long history of problematic alcohol consumption and illicit substance use from an early age. The offender reported some benefit from his participation in the Solaris program. He has not ever accessed counselling for his use of drugs and alcohol. The offender has been accepted into the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF), and he would like to attend, in part, to improve his sense of connection to his culture.
The offender expressed remorse to Ms Edwige for his offending. He explained that the property offences were committed with his stepfather with whom he has a difficult relationship where he feels his will is overborne. The offence involving his ex-partner he explained occurred when he was experiencing withdrawals from alcohol and drug use and suspected his partner of cheating on him. He accepted that his partner had done nothing wrong.
Ms Edwige concluded that the offender’s exposure to significant traumatic childhood experiences and psychosocial stressors have adversely affected his capacity to self-regulate and left him with complex developmental trauma that is thus far, untreated.
Ms Edwige determined that the offender “presents with impairments in the neurodevelopmental domains of cognition, language (expressive and receptive), attention, executive functioning, including impulse control and affect regulation.” Ms Edwige further opined that the offender presents with problematic substance use that has compromised “his mental health, emotional regulation and decision-making capacity, thereby increasing his vulnerability to maladaptive behaviours and adversely affecting social functioning.”
Ms Edwige noted the offender’s feeling of disconnection from his culture has been impacted by periods of incarceration. Ms Edwige explained that exposure to familial incarceration is associated with elevated rates of anxiety, depression, behavioural difficulties, educational underachievement, and later involvement with the justice system.
Ms Edwige concluded that at the time of his offending the offender’s ability to make considered and appropriate choices, think clearly, regulate his behaviour and fully appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions were impacted by his developmental trauma and probable foetal alcohol exposure.
Ms Edwige considered that the offender would benefit from accessing therapeutic support which focussed on pro-social coping skills, resilience building and self-esteem. Ms Edwidge recommended that the offender would specifically benefit from: (a) Continuing to engage with Yeddung Mura across their psychosocial programs to enhance wellbeing. (b) Reengaging in physical activity, specifically football. (c) Be supported to attend the Bush Healing Farm. (d) Be referred to a culturally responsive psychologist at Winnunga. (e) Be referred to a neuropsychologist to undergo further assessments in relation to possible alcohol exposure in utero. (f) A referral to the NDIS. (g) Be supported to access his own housing.
Ms Edwige concluded that with appropriate support and treatment the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation would positively improve.

The offender has demonstrated some remorse and taken responsibility for his offending. In relation to the burglary offences the offender reported minimal involvement and explained that he felt “dragged along” into the offending by his stepfather because of the complex dynamic which attends to their relationship. He explained that he “did not want any part of it” and that if he “could go back in time” he would not have engaged in the offending with his stepfather. The offender explained to the Elders Panel that he felt unable to resist the urging of his stepfather to engage with him in the series 2 offences. Ms Edwige recorded that the offender told her that he was “disappointed in myself and my stepdad for dragging me along. I played a part in it, but I didn’t want to. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone having their things taken. I feel angry at myself’”.
In respect to the offence against his partner, the offender told the Elders Panel in the sentencing conversation that he was sorry for hurting her and accepted that it was “all [his] fault”. The offender reported to Ms Edwige: Me and my partner were coming down off ice and the alcohol. We were walking to the bus stop. I thought in my head she was cheating on me and I hit my partner. She did nothing wrong. It was all in my head. Once it happened, I felt bad. I feel shitty. When I did it, I ran away. I felt controlled by the drugs. I didn’t know what to do. I am sorry for what happened. I never mean to do that, especially to my partner.
The offender expressed to Ms Edwige his “strong desire to make positive changes to his life” and I accept that to be true. Ms Edwige’s report revealed the offender had applied for several rehabilitation facilities and reported he wished to attend the NBHF because in addition to assisting him with drug and alcohol use it “will help [the offender] find (his) culture”.
The offender has not ever attended drug and alcohol counselling or successfully completed a program at a residential drug and alcohol facility. He expressed willingness to do so. During the sentencing conversation, the offender expressed some hesitation about attending a residential rehabilitation facility due to concerns that he would “…stuff it up” and he identified that “maybe like a day program would be good”. In a letter dated 26 March 2026 provided on 2 April 2026 the NBHF confirmed that the offender has a place in their rehabilitation program from 22 April 2026.
The Elders Panel observed that the offender will require significant support in the community to progress his plans for rehabilitation. The offender demonstrated insight into the extent of the challenges for him in the community identifying his need for substantial support to be able to pursue his rehabilitation goals. He told the Elders Panel that he was “sick of jail” and that he wanted to develop his knowledge around his culture to strengthen his identity and his connection to his culture. His explained his aspiration to emulate the lifestyle his brother has been able to build with his partner which does not involve drug use or criminal conduct. Aunty Selina explained to the offender that the long-term effects of healing himself would ripple through his children, his family and his community and that our community will always hold a supportive place for him. Uncle Rob and Aunty Paula encouraged the offender to continue to interrogate the role of drug use in his poor choices and to consider the supports available to him to address his entrenched problem with drug use. Aunty Rose reiterated to the offender that “there is no room for family violence, any violence, in our culture” and that he had “a lot of hard work” ahead of him.
As was comprehensively canvassed in Ms Edwige’s report, the offender experienced a childhood marked by numerous adverse events.
The offender’s childhood experience undoubtedly explains his offending conduct to a significant extent including the pull of his stepfather toward the offending conduct they engaged in together, his recourse to violence against his partner in the face of conflict between them and his willingness to be involved in a joint enterprise to remonstrate with an extended family member. The offender’s childhood experience saw him exposed to violence in familial relationships from a very young age and ‘normalised’ engagement in the criminal justice system. Giving “full weight” to the offender’s disadvantaged background results in a marked reduction in his moral culpability (see Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44]).
The offender has had a history of struggling to comply in the community with orders intended to support his rehabilitation. A structured regime of accountability and support will greatly improve his prospect of rehabilitation.

Parity is a consideration in this matter there being co-offenders in respect of series 1 and 2.
In relation to series 1, co-offender Wren entered guilty pleas to charges of joint commission aggravated burglary and aggravated common assault for her role in the incident. She was sentenced on 24 April 2025 as follows: (a) Joint commission aggravated burglary: 19 months imprisonment (reduced from 24 months, to commence 19 July 2024). (b) Aggravated common assault: 10 months imprisonment (reduced from 12 months, to commence 19 November 2025).
The total period of imprisonment was 2 years and 2 months. Due to the combined effect of an unsuccessful Drug and Alcohol treatment order and a suspended period of imprisonment, Ms Wren effectively served 8 months and 43 days of full-time imprisonment.
Co-offender Bird in series 1 entered guilty pleas and was sentenced as follows: (a) Joint commission aggravated burglary: 18 months imprisonment (reduced from 24 months, to commence 22 August 2024). (b) Aggravated common assault: 9 months imprisonment (reduced from 12 months, to commence 22 November 2025). (c) Contravene family violence order: 13 months imprisonment (reduced from 18 months, to commence 22 March 2026).
The total period of imprisonment was 2 years and 8 months, to be suspended after serving 14 months of imprisonment.
The prosecution conceded that the role of co-offenders Bird and Wren being responsible for the actual infliction of violence on the victim, was more substantial that the offender.
In relation to series 2, co-offender Crawford was convicted and sentenced to a total period of imprisonment of 6 years, 1 month and 26 days with a non-parole period of 5 years and 1 month. Co-offender Crawford was sentenced as follows: (a) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5585), the offender was convicted and sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment to commence on 10 October 2025 and expire on 9 August 2027. (b) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5586), the offender was convicted and sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment partially concurrent with CC2024/5585 to commence on 9 May 2027 and expire on 8 March 2029. (c) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5587), the offender was convicted and sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment partially concurrent with CC2024/5586 to commence on 6 December 2030 and expire on 5 December 2031. (d) On the charge of attempt joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5588) the offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment to commence 6 December 2030 and expire on 5 December 2031. (e) On the charge of going equipped for theft (CC2024/5591) the offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment wholly concurrent with CC2024/5588 to commence on 6 December 2030 and expire on 5 December 2031. (f) On the charge of joint commission damage property (CC2024/5592) the offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment wholly concurrent with CC2024/5588 to commence on 6 December 2030 and expire on 5 December 2031. (g) On the charge of minor theft (CC2024/5590) the offender was convicted and sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment to commence on 6 December 2030 and expire on 5 March 2031
The offender had a less significant role in the offending than co-offender Crawford who I am satisfied was the driver of the offending and the offender’s involvement. Comparable cases
In their sentencing tender bundle, the prosecution referred to DPP v Wren (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 163 and DPP v Bird (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 74. I have had regard to those outcomes.

The only appropriate outcome for the offending is a sentence of imprisonment. The offending involved serious violence directly inflicted by the offender on his partner, his involvement in a serious incident of violence on a young person and his involvement in several property offences.
A reduction in the offender’s moral culpability moderates the weight of punishment, denunciation and general deterrence to a substantial degree. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience, which has result in significant and complex untreated trauma and explains his recourse to offending conduct, is a basis for caution with respect to his prospect of rehabilitation. Additionally, while ever it remains unaddressed the offender will be at some risk of re-offending. The offender is a relatively young man who I accept is at risk of institutionalisation. He has expressed desire for support and assistance to rehabilitate and has opportunities for that support and assistance available to him in the community.
It is in both the community and the offender’s interest that the prospect he presents of rehabilitation be promoted. This is the best way to promote community safety.
The offender has accommodation immediately available to him. So too community-based services well placed to give effect to his desire for cultural connection as well his need for immediate support and assistance upon his release. The prosecution did not oppose the imposition of a suspended sentence order which was an acknowledgement that such an order can provide the offender with the regime of support that he requires as well as give effect to the overarching supervision of the court to ensure that the offender remains accountable. Any conduct in breach of the order will see the offender brought back before this Court for a reconsideration of whether he ought to remain in the community.
The starting point for joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5199) is 20 months of imprisonment reduced to 16 months of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5770) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5771) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5772) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for joint commission attempt aggravated burglary (CC2024/5773) is 8 months of imprisonment reduced to 4 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for joint commission theft (CC2024/6192) is 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for joint commission theft (CC2024/6193) is 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty and his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The starting point for aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/9213) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 18 months of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The offender is to be sentenced for separate offences involving different victims. The outcome should recognise the harm caused to those victims by the offending conduct. The application of the totality principle requires there be some concurrency between the separate series of offences though only to a degree necessary to ensure the outcome reflects the overall criminality involved. The series 2 offences warrant greater concurrency as between each other given they were committed on the same day within a very short period. The offending was, in effect, a spree of offences which can be properly described as one course of conduct.

For those reasons I make the following orders: (a) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5199) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to start on 6 September 2024 and end on 5 March 2026. (b) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5770) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment to start on 15 September 2025 and end on 5 August 2026. (c) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5771) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment to start on 15 February 2026 and end on 5 January 2027. (d) On the charge of joint commission aggravated burglary (CC2024/5772) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months and 22 days of imprisonment to start on 15 July 2026 and end on 5 June 2027. (e) On the charge of joint commission attempt aggravated burglary (CC2024/5773) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 4 months and 22 days of imprisonment to start on 15 March 2027 and end on 5 August 2027. (f) On the charge of joint commission theft (CC2024/6192) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment to start on 19 April 2026 and end on 5 August 2026. (g) On the charge of joint commission theft (CC2024/6193) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment to start on 19 February 2027 and end on 5 June 2027. (h) On the charge of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/9213) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to start on 6 March 2027 and end on 5 September 2028. (i) The total sentence imposed is 4 years of imprisonment. (j) The sentences imposed on CC2024/5770, 5771, 5772, 5773, 6192, 6193 and 9213 are to be suspended on 20 April 2026 on condition that the offender enter an undertaking to be of good behaviour and comply with the core conditions until 5 September 2028 together with the following additional conditions: (i) Accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and comply with all reasonable directions in relation to urinalysis, psychological assessments, support, treatment and care, employment, education and/or vocational training, NDIS referral and housing. (ii) Enter into the program at the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF) on 22 April 2026 and complete the program at the direction of NBHF staff. (iii) I direct that supervision can be terminated at the discretion of the Director- General or their delegate and to the extent possible the offender should be referred to culturally appropriate service providers including with respect to medical treatment, in order to fulfill his supervision obligations.

DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 90

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cited By (2)