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

The offending

3. In March 2025, the offender and the victim were in an intimate relationship.

4. On 14 March 2025, the victim was at a nail salon in Westfield Woden. The offender entered the salon and began to berate the victim, accusing her of cheating on him. The offender forcefully took the victim’s phone and began to look through it.

5. Later that day, the offender and the victim left the shopping centre and returned to an Airbnb in Phillip, where they were staying. The victim went to have a nap.

6. The victim awoke some time later to the offender standing over her. The argument concerning the offender’s perception that the victim had been unfaithful to him continued. Shortly after this, the offender requested that the victim use crack cocaine with him. The victim refused and another argument ensued.

7. The victim then gathered her belongings and told the offender she would be leaving.

8. In response, the offender threated to slit the victim’s throat. At the time, the victim thought the offender was in possession of a knife, in his pants. It is agreed that there is no evidence that the offender actually had a knife in his pants.

9. The victim phoned ACT Police to report the offender’s conduct at 7:11pm on the same day. Police attended the Airbnb shortly after and spoke to the offender. The offender was then placed under arrest.

10. Police then searched the Airbnb. During the search, police located numerous substances that are commonly used as cutting agents. The offender was transported to the ACT Watch House at 7:57pm. Once in custody, police searched the offender’s bag and wallet and found the following items: (a) 6.9g of cannabis; (b) 0.143g of ketamine; (c) 0.011g of lysergide (LSD); (d) Digital scales with methylamphetamine residue on them; (e) Glass pipe with methylamphetamine residue within it; (f) Metal spoon with methylamphetamine residue on it; (g) A blue ‘tick book’ containing names and dollar amounts next to them; (h) A white envelope containing $2,800 (fifty-six $50 notes); (i) $1,052.90.

Procedural history

11. The offender’s pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court at the commencement of a two-day hearing. However, the prosecution were aware in advance that the plea was to be entered, and witnesses were able to be called off. The matter was committed to the Supreme Court to allow the offender to pursue a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). However, a DATO was eventually not pursued. There was no application for the matter to be remitted to the Magistrates Court. Counsel for the offender informed the Court that the preferred course was for the offender to be sentenced in the Supreme Court.

12. I will afford the offender a 15% reduction in recognition of his pleas of guilty in these circumstances. The offender

The offender’s background

13. The offender is 38 years old. He told the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) author that his childhood was “difficult”. The offender’s parents separated when he was seven, and he went to live with his father. The offender’s childhood involved periods in boys’ homes, arrests by police, and frequent absconding from the family home.

14. The offender’s father used illicit drugs and was physically violent towards the offender. The offender’s father compelled the offender to engage in criminal behaviour from the age of eight. In around 2010 or 2011, the offender’s father was imprisoned. After this time, the offender lived with his mother.

15. The offender described his own behaviour as “unstable” when he was living with his mother. He said that he was homeless for approximately one year. He engaged in illicit substance use during this time. He reported that his attempts to live with his mother often resulted in physical altercations involving his mother and sisters, leading to police involvement. The offender subsequently lived on the streets, before returning to live with his father.

16. The offender reported that he now generally gets along with his mother, and that he has “periods of closeness” with his other siblings as well. The offender also reported that his relationship with his father is now positive.

17. The offender has previously had two long-term relationships, both of which have now ended. Both relationships were unstable and characterised by drug use. The offender has two children from the first relationship, and three children from the second relationship. When not in custody, the offender has regular telephone contact with all of his children. He has weekly or fortnightly contact in person with the children from the first relationship. He has less in person contact with the children from his second relationship, two of whom reside in Queensland.

Drug and alcohol use

18. The offender reported that his illicit substance use commenced at age eleven. He initially injected both methamphetamine and heroin at this age, having been provided these drugs from older individuals. The offender commenced using cannabis at age eighteen.

19. The offender told the PSR author that he commenced drinking alcohol at age fourteen, involving binge drinking, drinking to intoxication, and engaging in risky behaviour, including vehicle theft.

20. By the age of nineteen, the offender was no longer drinking alcohol to excess, but he had a heavy illicit substance dependence. He ceased heroin use in 2016, and but continued to engage in sporadic methamphetamine use from that time. He told the PSR author he had been abstinent from illicit substances for a period of 10 months between 2024 and February 2025.

21. The offender told the PSR author that methamphetamine has been the most problematic substance for him, and he recurrently relapses. He has overdosed on gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) two or three times, resulting in hospitalisation. He currently receives monthly buvidal injections, which do not address his methamphetamine use, but do assist him with routine. The offender reported that he has not used illicit substances while in custody.

Prior criminal history

22. The offender has an extensive criminal history in both the ACT and New South Wales. The offender’s criminal history includes theft related offences, including theft of motor vehicle; property damage; driving offences; and drug possession and supply offences. The offender has a previous conviction in 2017 for trafficking in heroin, and in 2008 for supplying a controlled drug to a child.

Remorse

23. The offender told the PSR author he “mostly agreed” with the statement of facts. However, he attempted to minimise his actions and deflect responsibility, saying that both parties were affected by illicit substances at the time. The offender stated that illicit substance use had caused him to behave “inconsistent[ly] with his usual behaviour”. I am not satisfied that the offender is remorseful for his offending, although I accept that he has some insight into the causes of his offending.

Comparative sentences

24. The Court is required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to consider sentences imposed in comparative cases when determining the sentences to be imposed on the offender. Annexed to these reasons is a table which sets out sentences imposed in other comparative cases involving threat to inflict grievous bodily harm, which is the most serious of the offences for which the offender must be sentenced.

25. I have taken the sentences imposed in those decisions into account. In doing so, I have borne in mind the limitations of comparative cases. Importantly, none of the comparative cases involves the aggravated form of the offence of reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of 7, rather than 5 years’, imprisonment. On the other hand, in DPP v Ziebell [2025] ACTSC 471; R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 333; and R v McHenry [2020] ACTSC 254, the threat was made in the context of the infliction of physical violence upon the victim, and in R v Cajina [2021] ACTSC 353; Ziebell; Catanzariti; and McHenry, an actual weapon was present, neither of which are features of the present offending. The difficulty in comparing the sentences imposed with the present case is further complicated by the application of totality principles where the comparative offenders were additionally sentenced for considerably more serious offences, such as forcible confinement.

Determination

26. The making of the reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm is the most serious of the offences that the offender is to be sentenced for. The victim of the offending was the offender’s then intimate partner. This is a matter which increased the applicable maximum penalty for the offence to seven years’ imprisonment.

27. There is no evidence to suggest that the offender planned to make, or carry out, the threat. The threat was made in the context of an argument that arose spontaneously. The victim apprehended that the offender had a knife, but there is no evidence that the offender in fact had a knife in his possession at the time that he made the threat. The offender acted with recklessness, rather than intention, in making the threat.

28. Nonetheless, although there is no evidence that the offender had a knife in his possession, the threat was made in person, in a context where the offender had behaved in a controlling and intimidating manner toward the victim earlier that day. Earlier in the day, he had publicly accused her of unfaithfulness whilst she was in a nail salon. The offender made the threat when the victim announced an intention to leave him. The victim was alone with the offender when the threat was made.

29. The offender’s background enlivens Bugmy considerations. As his counsel submitted, the offender has a childhood that involved exposure to physical violence, substance use, and homelessness. These entwined matters provide significant context for the offending conduct: see the Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Harmful Alcohol and Other Drug Use (November 2025) at [3] and [38]; Bugmy Bar Book, Child Abuse and Neglect (June 2024) at [24]-[25], [41] and [43]; Bugmy Bar Book, Homelessness (January 2020) at [24] and [27]. As the offender’s counsel submitted, whilst substance addiction is not itself a matter of mitigation, it is significant that the offender was exposed to drug and alcohol use from an early age. I also accept that the offender’s counsel’s submission that the offender’s abuse of substances “represents a maladaptive coping strategy by him to handle his childhood trauma” and that the offender’s childhood has directly impacted his ability to exercise judgment and to control his impulses.

30. In view of these findings, I accept that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced for each of the offences. The weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation is reduced to a degree. However, in view of the absence of remorse on the part of the offender, there is an increased need for specific deterrence and protection of the community. The sentence for the offence of aggravated reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm must also recognise the harm that has been caused to the victim.

31. The s 10 threshold is crossed for the offence of reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm. No penalty other than full time imprisonment is appropriate.

32. It was common ground that the drug offences were less serious. The amount of drugs in the offender’s possession was relatively small. I accept that they were mostly for his personal use. Whilst the offender engaged in supply of drugs to others, this was at the “street-dealer” level, and he was not involved in manufacture or distribution. There was an element of profit in the dealing, but, as the offender’s counsel submitted, the offender himself was a long-term user of illicit drugs, and his dealing assisted him in obtaining drugs for his own use.

33. I accept the offender’s counsel’s submission that the amount of cash which was found in the offender’s possession, whilst not insignificant, is not as large as is often seen in offending of this nature.

34. The s 10 threshold is crossed for the trafficking offence, but not for the possession offences, or the deal with proceeds of crime offence.

35. I will impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, reduced by 15% to 15 months and 9 days, for the offence of aggravated reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm. I will impose a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced by 15% to 5 months and 2 days, for the offence of trafficking cannabis. The two offences will be partially concurrent, resulting in an overall sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.

36. Both sentences will be backdated by 353 days to 13 May 2025 to take account of presentence custody. As the offender has now served 75% of the overall sentence, it is appropriate to suspend the sentence from today, upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order (GBO) for the remainder of the sentence.

37. I will impose a 4-month GBO for each of the remaining offences (the two offences of drug possession for the purpose of sale and the offence of deal with proceeds of crime). These GBOs will be concurrent and commence at the date of sentence.

Orders

38. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of aggravated reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm (CC2025/2997), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 15 months and 9 days’ imprisonment, commencing on 13 May 2025 and expiring on 21 August 2026. (2) For the offence of trafficking cannabis (CC2025/3970), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months and 2 days’ imprisonment, commencing on 11 April 2026 and expiring on 12 September 2026. (3) The term of imprisonment will be suspended from 1 May 2026 upon the offender’s entry into a Good Behaviour Order with the core conditions for the remainder of the term, being until 12 September 2026. (4) For the offence of possess drug of dependence (ketamine) for the purpose of sale or supply to another person (CC2025/3968), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order under s 13 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, with the core conditions for 4 months, commencing on 1 May 2026 and expiring on 31 August 2026. (5) For the offence of possess drug of dependence (lysergic acid) for the purpose of sale or supply to another person (CC2025/3969), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order under s 13 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, with the core conditions for 4 months, commencing on 1 May 2026 and expiring on 31 August 2026. (6) For the offence of deal with proceeds of crime (CC2025/4096), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a Good Behaviour Order under s 13 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, with the core conditions for 4 months, commencing on 1 May 2026 and expiring on 31 August 2026. I certify that the preceding thirty-eight [38] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker . Associate: Date: 25 May 2026 ANNEXURE A – Comparative Cases

Case Objective circumstances/charges Subjective Sentence circumstances

DPP v Ziebell The offender was charged with offences • Alcohol and drug Reckless threat to inflict [2025] ACTSC including assault, forcible confinement abuse from a grievous bodily harm: 2 471 and reckless threat to inflict grievous young age years’ imprisonment. bodily harm. Taylor J • Diagnosed with Discounted to 1 year, 4 The offender and his co-offenders had PTSD, anxiety and months and 22 days for confined the victim in a car. The offender depression plea of guilty. drove, and his co-offenders attacked the • Extensive criminal Total period of victim. At one point, the offender stopped history imprisonment set was 6 the car and went around to where the years and 6 months. victim was seated. The offender threated to cut her up with an electric saw inside the vehicle and bury her, and also punched and strangled the victim. (Max penalty 5 years)

R v Cajina The offender was charged with offences • Disadvantaged Threat to inflict grievous [2021] ACTSC including property damage, possession of childhood bodily harm: 8 months’ 353 a knife, possession of a weapon and imprisonment. threat to inflict grievous bodily harm. • Alcohol and drug Refshauge J abuse from a Discounted to 6 months The offender drove to a residence young age for plea of guilty. carrying a small silver axe. He knocked • Long criminal Total period of and requested to speak to a person not history imprisonment set was 9 known to the occupants and who was not months, suspended there. The offender became agitated and after 3 months for a struck the door and walls of the house period of 18 months. with the axe. The offender made a number of threats, including “I have a It is not identified ‘sawn-off’ in my car”, “you’re fucking whether sentencing dead” and that one occupant was “going occurred on the basis of to get bashed to death”. intent or recklessness.

(Max penalty 5 years)

R v Catanzariti The offence of threat to inflict grievous • Offender was 22 Threat to inflict grievous bodily harm was a part of a extended years old at the bodily harm: 12 months’ [2014] ACTSC series of offending against the victim, time of the imprisonment. 333 including forcible confinement, assault offending Discounted to 9 months occasioning actual bodily harm, and sexual Penfold ACJ • Father was violent for plea of guilty. offences. and abused Total period of The offender had bound the victim and left alcohol in imprisonment set was 6 him in a ditch. Later, after the victim had offender’s years and 11 months. freed himself, the offender and a co- childhood offender attacked the victim and the It is not identified victim’s friend. This included physical • Alcohol and drug whether sentencing assaults, forcing the victim to remove his abuse from a occurred on the basis of pants, and forcing the performance of young age intent or recklessness. sexual acts. At one stage, the offender • Limited remorse picked up a cricket bat, stood over the victim, and told him “I’m going to break (Max penalty 5 years) your fucking legs”. The offender did not hit the victim but gave the bat to his co-offender.

R v McHenry The offender was charged with threat to • “Not insubstantial” Threat to inflict grievous [2020] ACTSC inflict grievous bodily harm and possession criminal history bodily harm: 2 years’ 254 of a knife. imprisonment. • Longstanding Burns J The offender telephoned the victim, saying alcohol and drug Discounted to 21 he would “gut her like a pig”. The offender issues months, which was the then went to her residence, where she was total period of alone, and held a knife to her neck, • Father was violent imprisonment set. threatening again to “gut her like a pig”. and abused alcohol in Sentence suspended offender’s upon sentencing, taking childhood account of approximately 9 months • Longstanding of pre-sentence custody. mental health It is not identified issues whether sentencing • Late plea of guilty occurred on the basis of – 10% discount intent or recklessness. • Offender subject to a GBO at the time (Max penalty 5 years)

R v Hudson The offender was charged with a range of • Family violence Threat to inflict grievous [2019] ACTSC offences covering different incidents, context bodily harm: 5 months’ 110 including harassment, blackmail, arson, imprisonment. recklessly inflict actual bodily harm, and • Offender was 24 or Murrell CJ 25 years old during Discounted to 4 months threat to inflict grievous bodily harm. the offending imprisonment for guilty The offender had formerly been in a plea. (20%) relationship with the victim. The offender • Long criminal history Total period of harassed the victim and her new partner imprisonment set was 4 Non-parole over a period of weeks. The offender drove • Offender subject to years and 2 months. period reduced to the victim’s home and asked for her new a GBO at the time upon appeal, partner, saying “I was told [he] was here. but sentence I’ve got a gun in the car. I’m going to put a • Dysfunctional for threat to bullet in him if he is here.” The victim It is not identified upbringing inflict grievous believed based on earlier observations that whether sentencing bodily harm the offender possessed a rifle. occurred on the basis of and total intent or recklessness. sentence were (Max penalty 5 years – undisturbed: family violence Hudson v R aggravation not yet [2020] ACTCA enacted) 46