DPP v Dunlop

Nature and circumstances of the offending

14. The maximum penalties reveal each offence to be objectively serious. The community plainly expects that violent offences committed in the context of family relationships be taken seriously by sentencing courts. I observe the following features of the offences which inform an assessment of their objective seriousness. Count 1: aggravated threat to kill another person

15. The threat was made against a child who was in the offender’s sole care and control. The child was acutely vulnerable by the fact that the offender was the only adult in the immediate vicinity. Both the offender’s child and her ex-partner were entitled to expect that the child would be afforded the offender’s care and protection. The offender had the capacity to carry out the threat, and the threat was to end the child’s life though I observe that it was not especially detailed or graphic in nature.

16. The threat was made via text message. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the child was aware of the threat made by the offender.

Count 2: contravene family violence order

17. McWilliam J helpfully identified in DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 factors relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of this offence including the content of the contravention, the means, the location, the duration, the intention and the level of premeditation which attend to the commission of the offence.

18. The contravention was deliberate and involved repeated harassing and offensive contact with the protected person. I am satisfied that the contact was to intended cause the victim to fear for the safety of his children. I am not satisfied the conduct was pre-meditated or planned. Indeed, the nature of the conduct suggests that the offender was in a heightened emotional state and spontaneously lashing out at the victim. The conduct occurred over a relatively short period.

Subjective circumstances

19. A report prepared in March 2026 by psychologist Vanessa Edwige comprehensively recorded the offenders background and history.

20. The offender has recently turned 25. She is an Aboriginal woman and was raised in Queensland. She is one of six children. Her parents separated in 2003 and she described their relationship as characterised by domestic violence. The offender described a positive relationship with her mother who was a nurse and an emergency foster carer. The offender’s brothers commenced engagement with the juvenile justice system when she was about six years of age and she was exposed to their substance misuse in the home. This represented a very stressful time for the family.

21. The offenders mother re-partnered though the relationship was short lived. After a short battle with cancer the offender’s mother passed away in 2016. The offender experienced some difficulty obtaining her belongings and sentimental items connected to her mother because her mother’s partner would not permit her access to their home.

22. The offender met her ex-partner, the victim of this offending and became pregnant four months after her mother’s death. The relationship was violent and after the offender fell pregnant with their second child, she described the violence becoming “worse”. She described significant controlling behaviours on the part of her ex-partner as well as serious acts of violence perpetrated against her including choking.

23. The offender left the relationship in March 2023 and sought refuge in a crisis centre. She was assisted to move to Canberra where she stayed with an auntie for a short period before moving to crisis accommodation. She then spent a period in temporary accommodation for securing permanent housing.

24. The offender commenced another relationship in July 2023 which resulted in two children. This relationship was also characterised by violence, and this partner was imprisoned for five months because of violence he perpetrated against the offender.

25. When the offender was remanded in custody for these offences in February 2025 the children she shares with the victim were placed in his care. The offender’s youngest child was placed with family members of the father though was removed after three days in their care because of safety concerns. The offender’s children were all ultimately returned to her care upon her release with the two children involved in this offending returning to her care in August 2025.

26. The offender has some history of employment though reported being focused on the care and well-being of her children.

27. The offender reported that she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression in 2018 and prescribed medication. She also has a prescription for medical cannabis for anxiety and insomnia. She is not presently filling her prescription because she is still breastfeeding. The offender has some history of self-harming ideation.

28. Ms Edwige recorded that the offender’s exposure to domestic violence as child is a significant risk factor and increases the likelihood of mental ill-health and associated with “increased occurrences of PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol use disorder. Prolonged exposure to violence may result in psychosocial and sometimes physical responses that can have lasting effects on children’s development, behaviour and well-being”.

29. The offender explained that at the time of her offending her ex-partner had been calling her repeatedly and she was asleep. She described sending the text messages to him out of spite and that upon answering his call they began to argue. She told Ms Edwige: I was upset because I answered the call he started arguing. I send the text out of spite and the anger got over me. I just wanted to hurt him for what he had done to us and making us leave. I feel embarrassed. I feel like I am now a lot stronger and wiser. I wish it never happened. I’m sorry that it escalated to the point.

30. Ms Dunlop reported that when she thinks about the victim it causes her to physically shake because she is so frightened of him. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender meets the criteria in the DSM-5 for adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. Ms Edwige considered that the offender presents with a history of developmental adversity and interpersonal trauma. Her childhood experience included exposure to domestic violence and exposure to substance misuse within her broader family environment. These experiences have “contributed to underlying vulnerabilities in her emotional regulation and response to stress”. Ms Edwige considered that the offender’s capacity to make considered and appropriate choices, recent judgements, think clearly, regulate her behaviour and fully appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions was affected by her adjustment disorder.

31. Ms Edwige determined that a full-time custodial sentence would weigh heavily on the offender noting that she is a single mother of four children and she experienced significant trauma during her period on remand because of the removal of her children from her care.

32. Ms Edwige recorded that the offender requires ongoing therapeutic and psychosocial support to improve her well-being and develop skills to assist with emotional regulation. Ms Edwige considered that the offender has demonstrated her capacity to engage with supports to enhance her own well-being and the well-being of the children.

33. There was other material before the court confirming the offender’s engagement with culturally appropriate support services including the Mulleun Mura Program at the Women’s Legal Centre ACT and Yhurwun Bullan a support service dedicated to the well-being of First Nations women in the ACT as well as the early family support service operated by Canberra Health services.

34. There was other material before the court which demonstrated that at the time the offender committed the offences there was an order in place which named her as the protected person and which prohibited the victim from engaging domestic violence against her as well as other prohibitions which restricted his engagement with her and their children. Documentation provided by the offender also recorded her engagement with domestic violence support services in Queensland when she was attempting to flee her relationship with the victim.

35. I accept that the offender’s remand in custody, which saw three of her children removed from her care, had a significant effect on her life. In August 2025 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) issued a recovery order for both children that the offender shares with the victim to be returned to her care. In addition, the offender was granted sole parental responsibility for those children. She now has full time care for all four of her children.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

36. The offender experienced a disadvantaged childhood which included exposure to domestic violence and substance misuse. This childhood disadvantage must be given full weight. Her childhood experience explains to a degree her recourse to irrational and unpredictable conduct in the face of conflict with her ex-partner. I am satisfied that her moral culpability should be reduced to an extent.

37. The offender herself has experienced significant violence at the hands of two former partners including the victim of this offence. This explains to a significant degree her level of anger at the victim and her inability to control her emotional response to his contact with her which a DVO naming the victim as the respondent should have protected her from. This of course does not condone her conduct, but it does provide context for what otherwise might be inexplicable.

38. The offender has demonstrated genuine remorse for the offending and has accepted responsibility. The 11 days she spent remanded in custody resulted in severe consequences for the offender with respect to the care of her children. I am satisfied that this consequence has had some deterrent effect upon the offender. This view is consistent with the significant engagement she has had since that time with support services intended to support and assist her as the sole parent of now for young children.

39. The offender is now well supported by a number of services in the community expert at engaging with First Nations people. There is nothing to indicate that the offender remains at risk of further reoffending with respect to her children or with respect to the community more broadly. She does not abuse alcohol or misuse substances and there are no major mental health issues identified in any of the material. The return of all four of her children to her care reflects the absence of any criminogenic risk factors in her life. A report from Canberra Health services dated 11 March 2026 confirms that the offender has had significant engagement with their early family support service. The author of the report notes the offenders calm and gentle nature with her children notwithstanding the demand on her time from four little people all “vying for her attention” one of whom is breastfeeding. The author recorded that over the significant period that she has engaged with the offender she has not ever observed the offender to treat any of her children inappropriately or to speak to them in an uncontrolled manner. The author observes that all four children are “thriving” under her care.

40. The offences occurred on 12 February 2025. The offender has not re-offended and has strictly complied with bail conditions imposed upon her since her grant of bail 11 days after the offending occurred.

41. On the material before me I consider that the offender has very good prospects of rehabilitation.

Criminal history

42. The offender has a limited criminal history. It does include a conviction for contravening a family violence order in 2023. A non-conviction order pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) was imposed which indicates that the offence was not an especially serious example.

Plea of guilty

43. The offender entered pleas of guilty on 10 March 2026 in the Supreme Court, following committal for trial, prior to the scheduled Criminal Case Conference. The offender’s plea had significant utilitarian value particularly in circumstances where the prosecution case contemplated calling the offender’s children in the case against her. Given that the offender has sole parental responsibility for those children who remain very young, the complexities which might have attended to the situation were avoided by the offender’s plea.

44. The prosecution initially submitted that a 20 per cent discount in recognition of the offender’s plea would appropriately recognise the utilitarian value of her plea.

45. Counsel for the offender highlighted that several attempts were made by the offender to resolve the matter in the Magistrates Court with representations rejected by the Director in May and June 2025. The matter was committed for trial in July 2025. Representations were again made in September 2025, and the Court was advised on 19 December 2025 that the matter would resolve.

46. The prosecutor conceded, appropriately and fairly in my view, that in those circumstances a 25 per cent discount was appropriate.

47. In light of the significant utilitarian value of the timing of the plea and the history of the attempts by the offender to resolve the matter in the Magistrates Court a reduction in the sentence to be imposed of 25 per cent is appropriate consistent with my analysis in DPP v Joliffe-Cole [2024] ACTSC 256.

Time in custody

48. The offender spent 11 days in custody solely referrable to these offences. The sentence I impose will take this into account.

Current sentencing practise

49. I was taken to three outcomes by the prosecutor: DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348, R v Day (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 352, and R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172.

50. The outcomes I was taken to involved offending of a much more serious character, which the prosecutor conceded, than the offending in this instance and offenders with markedly different subjective circumstances to this offender including extensive criminal histories.

Determination

51. In sentencing the offender, I have regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The reduction of the offender’s moral culpability moderates the weight of punishment and general deterrence to a degree. I have already observed that the context of the offending which includes the offender’s experience of two relationships which saw her subjected to violence by her partners, does not excuse the offender’s conduct, but it does explain her emotional and somewhat irrational reaction to contact from the victim. This was contact which the offender ought to have been protected against arising from the order in place which prohibited the victim from contacting her.

52. It need hardly be said that family violence in any form is unacceptable: see s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of family violence and must not be the collateral damage of their parent’s inability to conduct themselves rationally and maturely. The sentence must recognise the harm done to the victim, deter the offender from engaging in this kind of conduct and give effect to her very good prospect of rehabilitation.

53. The offences were committed as part of a course of conduct. The threat to kill offence was simultaneously a breach of the DVO. I must be careful to avoid double punishment. It was properly conceded that complete concurrency as between the two offences was justified in the circumstances.

54. The prosecution submitted that a period of imprisonment was the only appropriate outcome in light of the objective seriousness of the offending, though conceded that a suspended sentence order would adequately address the overall criminality of the conduct and was “a more appropriate ultimate disposition [than a period of fulltime imprisonment] given the objective seriousness and the offender’s strong subjective factors”. I agree.

55. I do not consider that there is any warrant to require the offender to submit to supervision by ACT Corrective Services. She is actively engaged with numerous support services that are directly relevant to the challenges she faces as a single mother with full time care of four young children. It is in her interest to continue her engagement with those services. She is, in my view, highly motivated to remain the sole carer of her children as her conduct since the offending demonstrates and this should be her focus. In those circumstances I do not consider there to be any utility in a requirement that she also engage with ACT Corrective Servies.

56. The starting point for the aggravated threat to kill another person is 15 months of imprisonment reduced to is 11 months and 7 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

57. The starting point for the contravene family violence order offence is 5 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months and 23 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

Orders

58. For those reasons, I make the following orders: (1) The offender is convicted of CC2025/2080 aggravated threat to kill another person and CC2025/2081 contravene family violence order. (2) For the offence of aggravated threat to kill another person (CC2025/2080) the offender is sentenced to 11 months and 7 days of imprisonment to commence on 4 April 2026 and end on 10 March 2027. (3) The sentence imposed on CC2025/2080 is to be suspended today after the offender has served 11 days of imprisonment on condition that she enter an undertaking to be of good behaviour and comply with the core conditions until 10 March 2027. (4) For the offence of contravene family violence order (CC2025/2081) the offender is sentenced to 3 months and 23 days of imprisonment to commence on 4 April 2026 and end on 26 July 2026. (5) The sentence imposed on CC2025/2081 is to be suspended today after the offender has served 11 days of imprisonment on condition that she enter an undertaking to be of good behaviour and comply with the core conditions until 26 July 2026.

I certify that the preceding fifty-eight [58] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: P Beohm Date: 21 April 2026