DPP v Catania [2026] ACTSC 54

1. The offender, Lorenzo Vito Catania, has pleaded guilty to the following offences: 1. Aggravated intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence) contrary to s 19(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. 2. Aggravated destroy or damage property (family violence) contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment or 60 penalty units.

2. The offender is now to be sentenced for both offences.

Factual Background

3. At about 4:50am on Saturday 15 February 2025, Anthony Catania (the victim) was at his home in Lyneham in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) with his partner, when his son, the offender arrived at the house.

4. A short time later, an argument broke out between the offender and the victim, during which, or after the offender demanded drugs from the victim. After the victim told the offender that he couldn’t help him, the offender became aggressive and punched the victim multiple times in the face and bit his right ear, causing a chunk to be removed (CC2025/2038: Aggravated intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence)).

5. During the course of the altercation, the offender smashed a hole in the living room wall, broke a window in the bathroom, and knocked over the television in the living room, causing it to break (CC2025/2039: Aggravated destroy or damage property (family violence). The victim also suffered a graze to his left elbow which occurred when he was pushed against the wall.

6. The victim’s partner removed herself and their dogs from the room and went into a nearby room where she contacted police to report what was occurring. Police arrived at the home at around 5.02 am. They observed the offender and the victim standing outside the residence. They saw that the victim's shirt had a significant amount of blood on the front and that his right ear was still bleeding.

7. About 5:03am, Police placed the offender under arrest and took him to a nearby police vehicle. They observed the offender’s mood rapidly changed from heightened and energetic, to upset. They also observed that the offender was sweating profusely and that he had enlarged pupils. The offender was under the influence of an intoxicating substance.

8. The victim participated in an audio only evidence-in-chief interview. In that interview, the victim told police what had occurred and produced the section of his ear that the offender had bit off from his pocket. The victim also told police that he did not want the offender to go to jail, that the offender needed help and that he needed to engage in rehabilitation to sort himself out.

The Offender’s Subjective Case

9. The offender was 19 years old at the time of the offending. He is now 20 years old.

10. The offender has had an extremely troubled upbringing. The offender’s parents, who were 16 years old and 24 years old at the time of his birth, both had difficulties with substance use, and the offender was exposed to alcohol, drugs and domestic violence from a young age. The offender was placed in foster care at age six, as a result of his parents’ addiction to methamphetamine. Sadly, the offender fared no better in the foster system. He was exposed to further violence, and humiliation and became malnourished. The offender relocated to Canberra when he was seven years old, and was transferred to the care of his grandparents due to his parents’ inability to provide care for him. He was returned to the care of his parents after three weeks.

11. When the offender was in year 7, his father was incarcerated. The offender has explained that he then “went off the rails”. The offender has a criminal history that dates from 2021, when he was 15 years old. The offender started daily cannabis use at age 16. He first used methamphetamine at age 18 in the aftermath of a difficult relationship breakup. He regularly used methamphetamine after this time.

12. Despite this difficult childhood, the offender has become a productive member of the community. He has completed two years of a three year bricklaying apprenticeship. The offender hopes to complete this apprenticeship in the future. The offender is presently employed working as a labourer full time. He has been in this employment since August 2025.

Determination

13. I am required to make findings as to the objective seriousness of both offences. As the prosecutor submitted, the matters that are relevant to the objective seriousness of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm offence are as follows. 1. The grievous bodily harm was occasioned by the offender biting the victim's right ear resulting in a chunk being removed. As the prosecutor submitted, this injury, while amounting to grievous bodily harm, was not life threatening. It is a less serious example of grievous bodily harm. 2. There is no evidence as to whether the victim sought any medical attention or whether the chunk of ear was able to be re-attached. Either eventuality would have resulted in permanent scarring or disfigurement of a prominent area of the body which is not easily concealed from public view. But it also must be borne in mind that there is no suggestion that there was any damage to the victim's hearing as a result of the injuries inflicted. 3. The offender struck the victim multiple times to the face, that being the most vulnerable part of the body. Assaults to the face and head having the potential to result in significant injury. 4. The offender was motivated by a desire to obtain illicit substances from the victim to fuel his drug addiction. When the victim was unable to accede to the offender's request, the offender became increasingly aggressive and ultimately physically violent. 5. The offender's actions were not premeditated. They were a spontaneous response which occurred when the offender was in an intoxicated state and was motivated by a desire to further feed his drug habit. 6. The victim was in his own home, a place where any individual has an unequivocal right to feel safe and secure. 7. No weapon was used during the incident, nor did the offender commit the offence in company. 8. The victim's partner was present and had to remove herself and her dogs from the room in which the violence was occurring.

14. The matters relevant to the objective seriousness of the property damage offence are: 1. The value of the damage caused to the wall, television and window are all unknown. 2. The damage to the window would have left the home in a vulnerable state to persons who may have wished to enter the property, however, it is not known how long the window remained broken. 3. The damage to the window resulted in glass being dispersed across the floor which had the potential to cause injury to the occupants of the home from sharp shards. 4. The damage occurred in the victim's home, which was likely to cause the victim a sense of violation.

15. The offender and his father are family members as defined under the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT). Accordingly, both offences are aggravated by statute. As the Preamble to that legislation affirms, family violence is unacceptable in any form and freedom from family violence is a human right. These principles equally apply where the violence is inflicted by an adult child upon a parent. For these reasons, the offending requires the Court’s condemnation.

16. However, the offences must also be viewed in context. As the prosecutor very fairly accepted, Bugmy principles are enlivened, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offender’s upbringing and particularly his exposure to violence and alcohol and other drug use. The offending occurred as the direct result of the offender’s use of methamphetamine. Of course, the use of drugs does not mitigate violent offending. However, in the present case, that drug use is itself contextualised by an understanding of the offender’s background. In particular, as the Bugmy Bar Book describes, parental use of drugs can normalise drug use and result in children modelling drug use as a particular kind of coping behaviour: Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Harmful Alcohol and Other Drug Use (November 2025) at [38]-[42]. The offender’s drug use, which commenced at an early age, is more understandable when viewed through this lens.

17. The present case is further complicated by the fact that the victim is the offender’s father, who himself demonstrated both drug use and violence as a first response to the difficulties and challenges when the offender was only young. As the offender’s legal representative was careful to emphasise, this is not to blame the victim for the offending, but simply to understand the complexity of the circumstances which gave rise to the offending. Viewed in this context, I find that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced by his background of disadvantage.

18. The offender has the support of a loving mother, who has herself overcome longstanding addictions, and a grandmother, who has written an eloquent letter testifying as to the offender’s background, his yearning to achieve and desire to be given the possibility of more.

19. As the offender’s grandmother observes, the offender is only just at the beginning of his life. He was 19 years old at the time of the offending, and is now only 20 years old. He is at a life stage where the law recognises his capacity to mature and to positively change his behaviour.

20. The offender has expressed genuine remorse for his offending and the harm that he caused to his father. The offender has not had any contact with his father since his arrest but hopes to reconnect with his father in the future. The offender’s remorse has also been borne out through his changed behaviour. The offender reported to the pre-sentence report (PSR) author that he has not consumed methamphetamine or cannabis in the 13 months since his arrest. The PSR also records that the offender has changed his mobile number and created new social media accounts so as to disconnect from peers who may provide a negative influence upon him. He is to be commended for this proactive response. I am satisfied that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation. The offender has been assessed as having a low to medium risk of reoffending.

21. It is common ground between the parties that the seriousness of the offending is such that the s 10 threshold is crossed, and that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate. For the reasons outlined above, I agree.

22. However, it is also common ground that that, taking into account the offender’s remorse, his favourable prospects of rehabilitation and his family support, the purposes of sentence do not require the imposition of a period of full-time imprisonment. I also agree with this common position. As the prosecutor submitted, a period of full-time imprisonment would have the potential to destroy the positive steps towards rehabilitation the offender has already made.

23. I have considered the comparative cases provided to me by the prosecution and on behalf of the offender. As both legal representatives acknowledge, those decisions are of limited assistance, as they generally concern offending much more serious than the present.

24. Taking into account all of the matters outlined above, the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the offence of infliction of grievous bodily harm is imprisonment for three years, less a 25% reduction for the offender’s early plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months. The appropriate sentence to be imposed for the offence of property damage is imprisonment for 9 months, less a 25% reduction for the offender’s plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of 6 months and 23 days. Taking into account totality principles, and bearing in mind the significant overlap in the conduct, the sentences will be largely concurrent. Both sentences will be fully suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for the duration of the sentence.

25. The prosecution noted that the offender has been assessed as suitable for a Community Service Work Condition. The offender is willing to engage in community service. I agree with the prosecution that the imposition of community service work will promote the offender’s accountability. It is important, however, that the community service not undermine the offender’s employment, which is also a protective factor in the offender’s rehabilitation. I will order that the offender complete 15 hours of community service.

26. As the offender’s legal representative submitted, the offender has “charted a new pathway” away from drug use. The offender will require support in staying abstinent from drug use. The PSR author has stated that if the offender is sentenced to a community-based order, Corrective Services will support the offender in engaging with alcohol and other drug and other and other mental health services. I will otherwise order as condition of the good behaviour order that the offender accept supervision from Corrective Services, including attending alcohol and other drug and other counselling as directed for the time deemed suitable by Corrective Services.

Orders

27. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of aggravated intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (involving family violence) (CAN 2038/2025), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, discounted from 3 years, commencing on 11 March 2026 and expiring on 10 June 2028. (2) For the offence of aggravated damage to property (involving family violence) (CAN 2039/2025), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months and 23 days’ imprisonment, discounted from 9 months, commencing on 19 February 2028 and expiring on 10 September 2028. (3) The sentence is to be suspended from today, 11 March 2026, upon the offender’s entry into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the sentence with the following conditions: (a) The core conditions; (b) The offender accept the supervision of the Director-General of Corrective Services or their delegate and comply with all reasonable directions, including appropriate referrals to other agencies, until such time as directed by the Director-General or their delegate. (c) A community service work condition that the offender perform 15 hours of community service within the term of the sentence.

Amendment to the orders

28. During the afternoon following imposition of the above sentence, I was reminded of s 91 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), which provides that “[t]he number of hours of community service work required to be performed for a community service condition in the good behaviour order must be at least 20 hours and not more than 500 hours.” Both parties agreed that order (3)(c) should be amended to provide for the offender to undertake 20 hours of community service. Accordingly, order 3(c) was amended as follows: (c) A community service work condition that the offender perform 20 hours of community service within the term of the sentence.

I certify that the preceding twenty-eight [28] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 27 March 2026