DPP v Howe (a pseudonym)

1. The young person, Ronald Howe (a pseudonym), is to be sentenced for two series of sexual and violent offences. The first series he committed against another young person; a young woman who became known to him on an evening out in Canberra city in March 2025. The second series was committed against an adult woman in May 2025 when the young person randomly came across her whilst she was on a walking trail in a nature spot in Canberra.

2. The young person committed the offences when he was 15 years old. He is now 17 years old. He has been in custody since he committed the second series in May 2025. The sentencing task requires that I consider the specific features of each offence to determine the objective seriousness of the offence. This aspect of the sentencing task is intended to assess where the offending conduct sits on the spectrum of conduct which would constitute the offence. Sexual and violent offences are committed in a broad range of circumstances and can be constituted by a wide range of behaviour. The requirement to assess the detail of the conduct, whilst necessary, is not intended to undermine its effect on the victim. Each series in this matter can only be described as a harrowing experience for each victim. That experience, as I will go onto record, has had and will continue to have devastating consequences for them and for those who love them.

3. The occurrence of sexual offences in our community is sadly a circumstance which courts in this Territory and around the country continue to confront as a substantial part of the work we perform administering justice. The regularity with which sentencing courts must deal with this kind of offending reflects the preponderance with which it occurs in our community. A community which values equal participation in all aspects of society must continue to confront the challenge of prevention; for it is surely beyond doubt that the physical, emotional and psychological cost of its occurrence is borne disproportionately by women and girls, for the most part because of choices made by men and boys.

4. Though on its face it may appear to be, my task in this matter is not straightforward. The purposes of sentencing which I must apply necessarily require contemplation of considerations beyond punishment and protection of the community. The matters which I must consider in this instance include that the offender is a young person. When dealing with a young offender the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) requires particular consideration of the role for rehabilitation and an emphasis on individualised justice. That is what the legislature on behalf of the community has determined should form part of my consideration in coming to decide the just and appropriate outcome in a case such as this.

5. These considerations have particular focus regardless of the seriousness of the offending engaged in by a young offender who is more likely than an adult offender to be susceptible, because of their age, to the course correction that positive influences and support might bring about. The approach to sentencing young offenders reflects the interest the community has in ensuring that where possible young people who engage in criminal conduct should be encouraged and supported to reform. This interest recognises that rehabilitation is the best way to protect our community long-term.

6. The offending in this instance was serious and had awful consequences. It is the kind of offending conduct which undoubtedly causes alarm across the community and from which we must all be protected.

7. The mandated emphasis on individualised justice means the young person’s personal circumstances require careful and comprehensive consideration. A focus on the young person and what may be in his interest should not be mistaken for disregarding entirely the need to recognise the harm he brought about, the need to hold him accountable or the need to protect the community.

8. As these reasons will record the young offender, through no fault of his own, has a severe Neurodevelopmental Disorder. This disorder means he has complex, permanent disabilities which have been present since his birth and result in numerous deficits across a range of functionalities including his ability to regulate his emotions and his behaviour, as well as impaired cognitive ability.

9. The sentencing task requires that I determine the weight of each relevant sentencing consideration and, applying the specific sentencing regime for young offenders, determine an outcome which is just and appropriate.

10. The sentence I impose cannot undo the harm the young person has undoubtedly caused. The reasons which follow are my attempt to properly explain how I have come to determine the outcome in this matter which I consider to be just and appropriate.

11. I must sentence the young person for the following offences after he entered pleas of guilty on 23 October 2025 in the ACT Children’s Court. Series 1 – 7 March 2025 (a) One count of act of indecency without consent (CH455/2025) contrary to s 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of seven years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraphs 16 and 17(d) is the conduct relied upon for this count. (b) One count of act endangering health, namely intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (CH557/2025) contrary to s 28 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraph 17(f) is the conduct relied upon for this count. (c) One count of sexual assault in the third degree (CH1623/2025) contrary to s 53 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of 12 years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraphs 17, 17(a), 17(b), 17(c) 17(e), 17(g) and 17(h) is the conduct relied upon for this count. Series 2 – 26 May 2025 (d) One count of act endangering life, namely intentionally choke, suffocate or strangle another person to render them insensible or unconscious (CH950/2025) contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraph 31(a)-31(c) is the conduct relied upon for this count. (e) One count of act of indecency in the second degree (CH1624/2025) contrary to s 58 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of 12 years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraph 31(d)-31(e) is the conduct relied upon for this count. (f) One count of act of indecency without consent (CH947/2025) contrary to s 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of seven years of imprisonment. The conduct outlined at paragraph 31(f) is the conduct relied upon for this count. (g) One count of theft (CH1015/2025) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which has a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment, 1,000 penalty units or both. The conduct outlined at paragraph 31(g) is the conduct relied upon for this count. Agreed Facts Series 1 – 7 March 2025

12. At the time of the offending, the young person was 15 years old, and the victim was 17 years old. Prior to 7 March 2025, the young person and the victim had not met and did not know one another.

13. Late in the evening on 7 March 2025, the victim was drinking with her boyfriend and a group of friends at various public locations in Canberra City. The young person and a group of his friends approached the victim’s group, and the two groups began socialising together.

14. The young person told the victim and her friends his real name, that he was 17 years old and gave the victim his Instagram account name. After 15-20 minutes of speaking together, the victim indicated that she was going to purchase more alcohol. The young person offered to go with her and the victim accepted.

15. The young person told the victim he would go in to purchase the alcohol and suggested a ‘Bottle-O’ to purchase alcohol which was roughly 600 meters away. The victim agreed and the young person guided the victim. During the journey, the victim asked the young person why they had taken that route as it was not in the direction of the ‘Bottle-O’. The young person told the victim that it was a shortcut and the best way to take.

16. Whilst at the public park, the victim asked again where they were going because she realised they were nowhere near the ‘Bottle-O’. The young person stopped, grabbed the victim by the shoulders and tried to kiss her. The victim pushed the young person off and told him that she didn’t want to kiss him, and that she had a boyfriend. The young person stated that her boyfriend didn’t need to know and told the victim to come and sit down with him for a minute on a wooden bench in the park. The victim remained standing and did not sit on the wooden bench. The young person grabbed the victim by the hips and told her to “sit on me, make out with me”. The victim reiterated that she had a boyfriend and that she did not wish to kiss him. Despite this, the young person stood up and grabbed the victim and kissed her. This is the conduct relied upon for the act of indecency offence (CH455/2025).

17. The young person pushed the victim backwards onto the tanbark behind the bench and got on top of her, restricting her ability to move. Whilst on top of the victim, the young person did the following acts: (a) Whilst fully clothed, he pushed and repeatedly ground his genitals onto the victim’s vagina with force and aggression which caused the victim pain. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025). (b) He grabbed the victim’s hair and mouth. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025). (c) On multiple occasions when the victim shut her eyes, he forced her to open her eyes by grabbing her hair and yelling at her to “open your eyes, look at me”. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025). (d) He pushed the victim’s shirt up and exposed her breasts from her bra. He touched and kissed her breasts and ultimately removed the victim’s shirt in its entirety. The victim tried pulling down her shirt prior to its removal and told the young person that she was not comfortable. The young person removed the victim’s shirt. This conduct is relied upon for the act of indecency offence (CH455/2025). (e) On three separate occasions the young person rubbed the victim’s vagina over her clothing but did not penetrate the victim’s vagina. The first time was over her jeans, and the victim hit the young person away in response. The second time, the young person had his hand around the victim’s neck and held her while he touched her vagina over her jeans. On the third occasion, the young person had reached into the victim’s jeans and touched the victim’s vagina though her underwear. The victim attempted to free herself from the young person by pushing him away with her feet but was unsuccessful. The young person attempted to and failed in unbuttoning the victim’s jeans on numerous occasions. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025). (f) The young person placed his hands around the throat of the victim and maintained force for long periods of time, to the point where the victim could not breathe and she started coughing. On one occasion, while he was choking her, the victim moaned in pain. The young person applied more pressure in response, told her to moan more and stated that she liked to be choked. The young person would complete acts of a sexual nature on the victim while his hands were around her throat, including kissing her and forcing his tongue in her mouth. The victim could not recall how many times she was choked. This conduct is relied upon for the act endangering health, choking offence (CH950/2025). (g) The young person attempted to have the victim perform oral sex on him by sitting on the victim and moving his genitals up towards her face. The young person also attempted to take his pants off and asked the victim to give him a “blowjob”. This happened multiple times despite the victim refusing. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025). (h) During the offending, the young person continued asking the victim if she would have sex with him, including asking if he could take her pants off and if he could “just do it for a second”. The young person relentlessly asked if he could “cum inside” the victim which the victim said no on every occasion. The young person tried to convince the victim to have sex with him by telling her that her boyfriend didn’t need to know, that she wanted this, that he wasn’t going to tell anyone and offering to “get her stuff” (such as alcohol) if she had sex with him. This conduct is relied upon for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence (CH1623/2025).

18. During the incident, a group of people walked past the area where the young person and the victim were. The young person covered the victim’s mouth and told her not say anything. The victim laid there and stayed silent. The young person rolled to his side and got off the victim while the people were walking past but once the group had left, the young person got back on top of the victim and continued to engage in the offending against her.

19. The offending lasted around half an hour after the young person had pushed the victim onto the ground. The victim had begun crying and was hyperventilating. The young person grabbed the victim’s head in response to this and told her to look at him. The young person asked the victim whether she had consented to this or not, and the victim told him that she had not consented. This caused the young person to stand up and began “freaking out”. The young person argued with the victim over this, telling her she had consented. The victim pointed out all the ways she had expressed that she did not want to engage in any sexual acts with the young person and began to cry.

20. When the young person realised that the victim was crying, he told her a fake name and told her that he was 13. He then told her that he was 14 turning 15. The young person stated to the victim that he hadn’t raped her or touched her. The victim confirmed that he had not raped her but reiterated that he was forcefully touching her and wouldn’t let her go.

21. The young person and the victim walked from the park to a carpark. The young person told the victim that he couldn’t take her back to her friends as they would know something had happened. The young person grabbed the victim by the shoulders and told her that he would call his sister, who was in the city to “sort it out”. The victim asked the young person whether his sister was going to “bash her” and the young person stated that he didn’t know but reiterated that she would “sort it out”.

22. The victim then began crying and told the young person that she wasn’t going to say or do anything and she just wanted to go back to her friends. The victim told the young person that she wouldn’t tell anyone if he just walked away and left her and didn’t speak to her again. The young person continued to try and talk to the victim. He told the victim that if she contacted police, she would be in trouble as she was 17 and he was 14. The victim yelled at the young person to go away and began calling one of her friends.

23. CCTV did not capture the sexual offending but did capture the victim leaving her friends and the argument between the young person and the victim.

24. The victim eventually spoke to her friend [redacted] and told her that “something bad had happened”. [redacted] and some of their other friends met the victim near where the victim was at the time. The victim appeared distressed and disclosed that she had been hurt by the young person. The victim told her friends that the young person had choked her. The victim had marks on her neck which were visible. Her friends encouraged her to contact police.

25. At around 12:45am on 8 March 2025, one of the victim’s friends contacted 000 seeking police assistance and reporting that the victim had been sexually assaulted [redacted].

26. Police attended a short time after the phone call and met the victim and her friends in Canberra City Central. The victim was observed to be tearful, shaking and appeared visibly upset. The victim had a red mark on the left side of her neck and tanbark embedded in her hair when she spoke to police. Photographs of the neck injury were taken.

27. The victim took police to the park and location where she was assaulted. Police located two silver hoop earrings which were near where the victim identified lying on the ground. The victim confirmed that these belonged to her. The location of the offending had disturbed tanbark, which was pushed outwards creating divots on the surface.

28. The victim was taken to Canberra Hospital the around 4:00am on 8 March 2025 where she underwent a forensic medical examination (including a CT angiography of the brain and neck which were reported as normal). The clinical examination conducted revealed that the victim had petechial bruising and abrasions on the front of her neck, bruising on her hands, and a combination of abrasions and redness on her scalp.

29. On 8 March 2025, Police arrested the young person. After he was arrested and cautioned, he made comments to police to the effect of "so how does this work when she was like 19? The girl that I got with last night?". Series 2 – 26 May 2025

30. At the time of these offences, the young person was 15 years old, and the victim was 60 years old. Prior to 26 May 2025, the young person and the victim had not met and did not know one another. At the time of the offending, the young person was on bail in relation to the offending of Series 1 and was due to appear in the ACT Children’s Court.

31. On 26 May 2025 at around 10:15am the victim was completing the Oak Hill trail within Mulligans Flat Woodland Sanctuary. She was descending Oak Hill towards the car park on Mulligans Flat Road when she heard another person behind. The young person was the person running behind her. To allow the person to pass, she stepped off the gravel trail and onto the adjacent grass. The following then occurred: (a) As the victim turned, the young person grabbed her from behind by placing his arm around her neck and pulling her backwards. This caused her head to tilt back. Both the young person and the victim fell on the ground. The young person was underneath the victim, holding her with an arm around her neck, his legs wrapped around her torso and their backs facing the ground. This conduct is relied upon for the act endangering health, choking (render them insensible or unconscious) offence (CH950/2025). (b) At this time, the victim struggled against him. The young person tightening his hold around her neck which prevented the victim from breathing or screaming for help and caused her to bite her tongue. The victim lost consciousness for a short period of time and urinated herself. This conduct is relied upon for the act endangering health, choking (render them insensible or unconscious) offence (CH950/2025). (c) When the young person loosened his grip on her neck the victim regained consciousness and she began to scream. The victim broke free from the hold and got away. (d) The young person stood up and walked over to the victim, who was screaming at him to leave her alone. The young person was telling the victim to “shush, just shush”. The victim began kicking out at the young person as he approached. The young person ended up grabbing her legs and dragging her back towards him. The young person struck the victim twice to the face and ended up on top of the victim, restraining her as she lay on her stomach. This is conduct relied upon for the act of indecency offence in the second degree (CH1624/2025). (e) The young person grabbed the victim’s hair and pulled her neck back with such force that she believed her neck was going to break. The victim tried to bite him but was unsuccessful. This is conduct relied upon for the act of indecency offence in the second degree (CH1624/2025). (f) The young person let go of the victim’s hair and placed his hand between her legs, touching her vagina over her clothing. This is the conduct relied upon for the act of indecency offence (CH947/2025). (g) The victim managed to push the young person off. The young person stood up, grabbed the victim’s phone and began running away. The victim’s phone was later found in bushland. This is the conduct relied upon for the theft offence (CH1015/2025).

32. The victim stood up and ran down the hill towards the carpark at Mulligans Flat Road, screaming. The victim ran into a stranger, [redacted], who had been out running separately around the same track. The victim was visibly upset, begging for help, and was difficult to understand as she had a hoarse voice and kept putting her hand to her neck. The victim also appeared to be bleeding from her mouth.

33. [Redacted] called 000 from her phone but the call disconnected as there was no reception. The victim and [redacted] walked down towards the road as the victim refused to stop due to concerns that the young person was going to come back. As they got closer to the road, contact was made with emergency services which confirmed they were on their way.

34. As the victim and [redacted] reached the Mulligans Flat carpark, they observed the police were there. Police were in attendance because they were completing a welfare check on the young person as a family member contacted them with concerns of suicidal ideation for him. As the family member was unable to locate the young person, police had requested a telecommunication triangulation of the young person’s phone which led them to the carpark.

35. At this time, the victim disclosed to police what had occurred to her and gave a description of her attacker. The victim’s description matched the description of the young person that had been given to police by the concerned family member.

36. Police later located the victim’s discarded phone and water bottle on the trail. Police further located a white hooded jumper belonging to the young person.

37. The victim was assessed by ACT Ambulance Officers and taken to North Canberra Hospital. The ACT Ambulance Officers noted that the victim had scratch marks to the left side of her neck and was disclosing pain to her jaw on the left side and generalised chest pain. The victim underwent a forensic medical examination where it is noted that the victim had a number of bruises and abrasions to her face, neck, elbow and back. The victim reported to the forensic medical officer that she had difficulty swallowing, pain in her jaw and to the left side of her face, pain on her upper abdomen, and nausea.

38. The young person’s mother arrived at the carpark a short time after police first located the victim because she had received a phone call from her son on an unknown number asking to be picked up from the carpark. The young person was located by police a short time later, he was observed to have ligature marks on his neck, and his clothing was torn in places. The young person told police he had sustained the ligature marks from falling over. The young person was arrested and taken to Canberra Hospital.

39. Police later located the young person’s phone and conducted an examination. They located four Snapchat messages believed to be suicide messages to the young person’s family. In a search conducted by police in the area which was captured in photos taken by the young person, cords and shoelaces tied around a large branch of the tree around 2 m off the ground were found. One of the cords was broken. Victim impact statements Series 1

40. The victim impact statement (VIS) prepared by the victim of these offences was read aloud on her behalf. The statement described the psychological and emotional effects that the offences have had and continue to have on her life. The victim explained that the anxiety and the “constant” fear that she now lives with is so severe that she often cannot leave her home. The offence has dramatically undermined her ability to trust people, maintain relationships and employment. The victim stated that her inability to leave home has made it “unbelievably difficult” to financially support herself as now an adult.

41. The sexual assault occurred when the victim was in her last year of high school, the effect of which she described as follows: My school attendance dropped entirely, ultimately preventing me from graduating in my final year of school. I looked forward to completing my final year of school with my peers and I feel robbed of my opportunity to live [up to] my potential. Now I am left feeling completely behind everyone else and upset that I don’t get to follow up on my goals I had set for myself such as university and moving out of home because of the impact this crime has had on me.

42. The victim stated that the assault has “left [her] as a shell of the person she once was”, she explained: Overall this assault has left me feeling like a shell of the person I once was. I wouldn’t wish these feelings upon anyone as I am still suffering with the haunting thoughts caused by this event. I am worried and scared for my future as I know that this will stick with me for life.

43. The victim’s mother also provided a VIS. She described the effect of the incident as follows: … severely broken me, shocked me to the core, and have made me question the world we live in when a person of such a young age could commit such an offence against a vulnerable young woman. …. I've had to witness my daughter withdraw from the world she once loved and trusted enough to do everyday things that all humans have a right to do without any harm coming to them. …. That is the hardest thing a mother can say, that I was unable to protect my child when she most needed it, and knowing she’ll live with this for her entire life breaks my heart into pieces and it angers me. Series 2

44. The victim read her VIS in which she explained: On 26 May, my whole world was turned upside down. I was attacked whilst on a walk in broad daylight by a stranger. At first, I felt total disbelief, followed by a hard realisation that I was in trouble. I truly felt that I was going to die on the hill that day. I was in so much fear that I could not even feel physical pain of what was happening to me.

45. She described the assault as immediately effecting her physical and emotional wellbeing and recorded the shame that she felt while waiting for an ambulance to attend to her. She was unable to drive or walk due to the pain of her injuries. She described the loss of her independence arising from her fear and anxiety after the attack including that she moved to live with her son. The victim stated: The emotional and physical impact of this attack has been life changing. This kind of senseless and unprovoked attack has completely changed how I think and how I live my life. I was 60 years old when the attack happened and to have your life completely changed at that age is all encompassing.

46. The statements from each of the victims directly informs my understanding of the extent of the harm caused by the young person. The statements are testament to the devastation that sexual violence causes; too often to the lives of women and girls at the hands of boys and men who feel entitled to use them as mere vessels for sexual gratification. This matter demonstrates that the insidious harm caused by sexual violence does not discriminate. The course of a young victim’s life was severely affected at a time when she should be facing her future with optimism and aspiration, while the other older victim’s ability to fully embrace the freedom that should come with the privilege of aging has been totally undermined. The hope that both victims had for their, perhaps quite different futures, has been equally shattered. The young person has caused catastrophic, irreversible harm to both women and the sentence I impose must recognise that. Objective Seriousness

47. I must assess the objective seriousness of the offending which includes considering the nature and circumstances of the offending. These are undoubtedly objectively serious offences by reference to the applicable maximum penalties. There is a wide spectrum of conduct and circumstances which can constitute the offences. Common to both series is that they were committed in public. The offending was brazen, with the young person using his physical strength to overpower each victim and use the victim’s fear in an attempt to facilitate their co-operation to pursue his own sexual gratification and minimise detection. The nature of the offending in this matter represents a kind of sexual offending which engenders terror by exploiting physical power and preying on vulnerability.

48. The offences which constitute series 1 are ‘rolled-up’. This means each count captures multiple acts engaged in by the young person which would constitute the offence. The criminality involved in a ‘rolled up’ count is necessarily more serious than an example of the offence which is constituted by one act: R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 at [13] and Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 at [68]-[70].

49. In light of the agreed statement of facts in which the response of each victim was recorded to include obvious signs of their fear, pain and distress I cannot accept that the young person did not know each victim was not consenting. The signs were so obvious that even allowing for the effects of the young person’s Neurodevelopmental Disorder and his background of disadvantage, the detail of which I will come to, he could only have known in each case that the victim was not consenting.

50. Whilst the young person reported that he had not ever received any formal education about sexual relationships and consent, his mother reported that her children had always been taught about privacy with respect to their bodies and consent to the extent that she instructed them “you can’t just force someone to do it”.

51. The young person’s description of the victim in the series 1 offence as “the girl that I got with”, as a reflection of any misunderstanding which might have influenced his conduct, must be viewed through the prism of the level of aggression and control he subjected her to, her visible reaction to his conduct, the young person’s effort to convince the victim that he had not “raped” her, the suggestion of repercussion from his sister and his use of false name after the incident. Those factors all unequivocally point to knowledge on his part that his conduct was wrong and that he knew the victim was not consenting. The young person reported that he thought the victim ‘moaning’ was consistent with pleasure. Again, this must be assessed against the background of the other responses by the victim which included crying, pushing the young person away and hyperventilating. The young person also expressed to report authors that he thought choking was “normal” in sexual interactions because he had engaged in it with girlfriends previously and watched pornography where it was depicted. The submission was made that the young person accordingly, had “a distorted view of what a healthy sexual relationship looks like” because of his viewing of pornography and “his formative years”. The submission has little force in my view.

52. First, the evidence does not permit a finding that his conduct, in particular his views about consent in a sexual context, came about because of exposure to pornography and/or his disadvantaged childhood. I accept that he may well have formed the view that choking was a “normal” part of sexual relationships because he had seen it depicted in pornography, but on the evidence before me this says little about sexual contact, choking or otherwise, which is entirely without consent.

53. Secondly, the young person had only just met the victim in series 1. There is nothing in the facts which indicate she had given him even a hint of romantic or sexual interest. When the young person first kissed the victim she pushed him away, told him she did not want to kiss him and that she had a boyfriend. She continued to demonstrate her lack of consent by physically resisting him, refusing his requests as well as his attempts to bargain with her to gain compliance. In series 2 the victim was entirely unknown to the young person. The submission as to his “distorted view”, even if I were to accept it, has little relevance to the facts of these matters. In each instance there was no ‘relationship’ between the young person and the victims about which he could take a distorted view.

54. The nature of the conduct and the circumstances in which it occurred in each series (circumstances which were entirely brought about by the young person) can only admit of actual knowledge that neither victim was consenting. That is the basis upon which I turn to consider the other features of the offending in each series. Series 1

55. In assessing the objective seriousness of each offence, I have taken into account the following features: (a) The young person isolated the victim both from her friends and from public view under the pretence of assisting her to obtain alcohol. The young person convinced the victim he was taking her on a shortcut to facilitate her cooperation with the path he was taking. The young person exploited the victim’s willingness to follow his route in pursuit of his intention to have sexual interaction with her. (b) The victim was herself a young person at the time of the offending. (c) The entire incident was not momentary. (d) The deliberate act of choking was sustained and was performed with sufficient force to restrict of the victim’s breathing which caused her pain, fear, discomfort and injury. (e) The young person completely disregarded the victim’s repeated rejections and protests. This included the young person shoving the victim to the ground and holding her down to restrict her movement and covering her mouth to prevent her from calling out which minimised the likelihood of discovery and undoubtedly increased the fear she experienced. (f) The young person engaged in conduct which was additionally humiliating and degrading covering the victim’s mouth and forcing her to open her eyes to look at him for example. The sexual offences involved protracted and cruel violence in order that the victim comply. The victim’s minor injuries including mild bruising and redness to her skin. The force used on the victim demonstrative of the young person’s determination to pursue his own sexual gratification. (g) The intention attached to the unlawful assault for the sexual assault in the third-degree offence extends beyond an intention to commit a physical battery or create a fear of imminent harm. The offence involves an intention to assault in furtherance of an intention to engage in sexual intercourse. This significantly elevates the criminality of the offending above that of a common assault. The facts of the offending reveal the young person sought to engage in acts of sexual intercourse including digital, penile and oral penetration of the victim. (h) The act of indecency offence saw the young person have skin on skin contact with the victim’s breasts and contact with her genital area over her clothing. (i) The young person was undeterred by the presence of people walking close by and resumed the offending once they moved past and he determined they no longer presented a risk of detection. (j) The young person attempted to manipulate the victim by persuasion that she had consented to the acts and that she may get in trouble because of his age. The young person’s reference to his sister could only have been interpreted that the victim may be subject to further violence if she drew attention to his conduct.

56. In summary, the sexual assault in the third-degree offence involved actual violence consisting of numerous aggressive acts in pursuit of sexual intercourse. The nature of the violence caused pain consistent with the injuries sustained and fear, consistent with the victim’s response. The act of indecency involved skin on skin contact with the victim’s breasts and contact with the victim’s genital area over her clothing. The choking caused breathing restriction and was sufficiently forceful to cause petechial bruising and was deliberate. The victim was vulnerable having been isolated by the young person and by his actions, he limited her capacity to call for help.

57. The features of the offending and the circumstances in which it occurred see the incident overall properly characterised as serious with each offence a serious example. Series Two

58. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offences in this series, I have taken into account the following features: (a) The initial physical contact with the victim was from behind and entirely without warning. The young person grabbed the victim’s neck area, a vulnerable area of the body, with significant force. The nature of the contact and the isolated scene caused acute terror for the older victim; she was entirely at the young person’s mercy. (b) The young person intentionally choked the victim using substantial force, successfully cutting off the victim’s airway which resulted in a loss of consciousness and the capacity to control the functioning of her body. The victim was humiliated by the consequences of the force used upon her and sustained injury to her neck and her tongue. (c) The young person continued the assault on the victim whilst she fought back and was screaming. (d) The first act of indecency in the series involved brutal violence in furtherance of the victim’s submission. The young person “shushed” the victim in an effort to minimise detection. The victim unsurprisingly sustained physical injury. The second act of indecency involved contact, which was not protracted, with the victim’s genital area over her clothing. (e) The young person took the victim’s phone knowing it would leave her unable to seek immediate assistance. It contained information of sentimental value to the victim. I am satisfied this was an impulsive act and not planned or premeditated. (f) The offences were committed in quick succession, and the offending was not protracted, but the incident did see the young person pursue the victim and “drag” her back once she initially managed to escape his hold. (g) The young person was on bail at the time he engaged in this conduct.

59. This choking act was a serious example of the offence. To the extent that the allocation of the conduct to a specific point on a ‘range’ is useful, the prosecution submitted the choking offence was at the ‘mid-range’. Noting the features of the offending as I have, I cannot agree. In my view it was an offence toward the upper end of seriousness: as to which see Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 (per McWilliam and Abraham JJ at [131]). So too the act of indecency in the second degree was serious noting the victim was stuck deliberately and directly twice in the head, a vulnerable part of her body and the pressure on her neck was so forceful that the victim was concerned that her neck would “snap”.

60. The act of indecency involved direct contact with the victim’s genital area though did not involve skin on skin contact. It only ended because the victim managed to push the young person away.

61. This incident overall involved a high degree of criminality. The features of each offence and the circumstances in which it occurred make the acts serious examples of the offence. Sentencing principles – for young offenders

62. The ‘particular provisions’ which apply to sentencing young offenders are set out in chapter 8A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). The Court of Appeal in MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26 (MT) set out the approach to the application of those provisions and observed that chapter 8A was inserted into the Sentencing Act with a lengthy Explanatory Statement which “emphasised that the goal of rehabilitating young offenders was central to the amendment” at [37]. The Court further observed at [43] that prior to the introduction of the chapter “in this jurisdiction it was well accepted that rehabilitation played a dominant role in sentencing young offenders”. Citing Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 (Thorn) at [26].

63. The provisions specific to young offenders recognise that because of their age they do not possess the same level of maturity, experience, judgement or self-control as adults and because of their age are more likely to be capable of reform by exposure to positive influence and support.

64. The ‘particular provisions’ in chapter 8A do not exclude consideration of the other purposes of sentencing contained in s 7 nor considerations which may be known and relevant under s 33 of the Sentencing Act. Consistent with the observations of the Court in MT at [55]: We note that s 133C: (a) emphasises the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation and provides a statutory warrant to “give more weight to that purpose” than to any of the other purposes of sentencing contained in s 7. (b) does not distinguish between the sentencing purposes that may be relevant when sentencing young offenders according to the seriousness of the offence, nor between offending conduct that reflects “adult behaviour” and conduct which does not; (c) does not distinguish between young offenders based on their age; and (d) requires a sentencing court to have “particular regard” to “individualised justice”.

65. The requirement in s 133C to pay particular regard to individualised justice, read together with the discretion to give greater weight to the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation, where a young offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, will see those prospects weigh heavily in the sentencing task MT at [64].

66. Section 133D mandates consideration of the young offenders: (a) Culpability for the offence having regard to his or her maturity; (b) State of development; (c) Past and present family circumstances.

67. A sentence of imprisonment for young offenders must be “a last resort”: s 133G(2). This is an explicit expression of the state of satisfaction required pursuant to s 10 of the Sentencing Act in order that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed. In order to impose a term of imprisonment s 10 requires a sentencing court to be satisfied, having considered possible alternatives, that no other penalty is appropriate. In the case of a young offender the term of imprisonment imposed must be the shortest appropriate term: s 133G(2).

68. I must consider making a combination sentence if I determine to impose the last resort (s 133G) in circumstances where the Sentencing Act precludes the imposition of a non-parole period for young offenders: s 64(2). The young person’s background and history

69. There was a substantial volume of material produced for the sentencing hearing which included: (a) Pre-sentence Report (PSR) by Ms Sara George, 23 February 2026 with Youth Justice and Adolescent Services Case Plan. (b) Psychological assessment report by Ms Vanessa Edwige, dated 13 February 2026. (c) Psychological assessment report by Ms Ahu Kocak, 17 February 2026. (d) Comprehensive Risk Assessment Report by Dr Russell Pratt, 19 February 2026. (e) Comprehensive cognitive assessment report by Dr Bianca Calabria, 1 July 2026. (f) Therapeutic Correction Order Assessment Report (TCOAR) by Ms Sara George, 22 July 2026. (g) Letter of support from Mr Zachary Noble, Community Connections and Pathway Coordinator, Muliyan ACT Education Directorate,10 February 2026. (h) Letter of support from Edie Davidson ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy Service Letter Edie Davidson, 23 January 2026. (i) Letter of support from Barb Causon Office for ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Commissioner dated 23 February 2026. (j) Letter of support from Ida Hanley Yeddung Mura, 25 February 2026.

70. From that material the following matters can be recorded and summarised.

71. The young person turned 17 in August this year. He is Kamilaroi, his family connected to the New England area of New South Wales where the young person was born. He is proud of his culture and committed to his faith. Prior to his remand at the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre on 26 May 2025, the young person lived with his mother and his three older siblings with whom he has close relationships which he considers to be positive. The young person has expressed a preference to relocate out of Canberra when he returns to the community, preferably with his mother, to a place where people do not know about his offences and where extended family currently reside.

72. The young person moved to Canberra with his mother and siblings when he was three years old to escape severe family violence perpetrated against the family by his father. The family first resided in crisis accommodation and subsequently moved numerous times after their relocation.

73. Five years prior to his birth, his family were involved in the NSW child protection system for concerns regarding family violence, neglect, sexual abuse and sexualised behaviours. It was reported that during the perinatal period of the young person’s life his father perpetrated family violence against his mother. There is an extensive child protection history in relation to the family in the ACT and NSW with numerous recorded reports concerning inadequate supervision, sexual abuse, exposure to parental substance misuse and family violence, as well as a chaotic home environment characterised by conflict between family members.

74. The young person’s father was convicted and imprisoned for a child sex offence prior to his birth. His siblings have also been engaged in the youth and criminal system and have spent time incarcerated. The young person had little contact with his father during his younger years and does not wish to have a relationship with his father. He expressed sadness about this but regards his older brother as “like a dad almost”.

75. In 2018 an appraisal of the family was conducted by Child, Youth and Protection Services (CYPS). The appraisal was “closed” with a recommendation for CYPS to “remain involved” in a “follow up” capacity because the level of risk was assessed as managed by strong community supports. During the family’s involvement with child protection authorities several interventions and support service referrals occurred. The young person’s mother found parenting challenging as her older children began to engage with police, commenced drug use and exhibited violent behaviour. In 2019 the family were referred to the ‘Functioning Family Therapy’ service and engagement continued until August 2020.

76. The young person and his mother have maintained a strong connection with daily phone calls and visits whilst he has been detained at Bimberi. The young person also described strong connections with his siblings and his maternal grandmother who resides in NSW and has “always been there for him”.

77. The young person has been exposed to alcohol and drug misuse as well as physical violence and verbal abuse for his entire life. The young person reported that by year 7 he was a daily cannabis user, binge drinking at least weekly and had used MDMA, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, cocaine, crack cocaine and methamphetamines. He associated his escalating use of substances with his mental health struggles and social withdrawal.

78. In the lead up to the offending the young person reported daily consumption of cannabis and regular binge drinking. The young person has not used any of these substances at Bimberi and has expressed no thoughts of wanting to use alcohol or drugs whilst in custody. When asked to describe what his life in the community might be like without using drugs or alcohol the young person said, “I would be happy every day… Energised … Calm”.

79. The young person acknowledged being easily influenced by peers and described his antisocial conduct as being motivated by a desire to fit in. He acknowledged his sibling’s criminal behaviours as being a factor in his own antisocial conduct.

80. The young person attended school in the community from preschool to grade 8. He initially attended a mainstream high school but was referred to a flexible education school in grade 8 due to poor attendance and behaviour. He commenced enrolment with the Muliyan Program on 30 January 2023 and entered the Murrumbidgee Program at Bimberi in May 2025. He graduated from grade 10 with a 95% attendance rate whilst at Bimberi and was supported at his graduation ceremony by his family. The young person was said to have “thrived educationally” at Bimberi.

81. The young person intends to complete grade 11 and 12 but he has expressed concerns about attending school in the community because he is fearful of being recognised by his peers. He has completed numerous accredited and industry-relevant courses to strengthen his capacity for employment.

82. The young person has aspiration to become an Aboriginal ranger with ACT Parks. Through engagement with the Muliyan Program he completed a series of structured work experience placements. Feedback from his participation was “unanimously positive” with several host organisations “expressing interest in exploring future employment or pathway opportunities” for the young person.

83. The following observation was made by an executive teacher about the young person’s engagement with the Murrumbidgee education program at Bimberi: [the young person’s] journey at Murrumbidgee reflects a young person who is motivated, respectful, and deeply engaged in both his learning and his community. His ability to connect personal interests with educational tasks, his craftsmanship in practical subjects, and his leadership in socio-emotional learning programs all highlight his diverse strengths. [the young person’s] contributions – whether through art, hospitality, horticulture, or community projects – demonstrate creativity, resilience, and a strong sense of responsibility. As he continues to build on these foundations, [the young person] is well positioned to expand his skills, pursue his passions, and make meaningful contributions to both his education and the wider community.

84. The young person has been supported on remand by a Custodial Mental Health Services and initially had weekly sessions with a social worker. He was reported to have engaged positively and made significant progress in relation to his emotional well-being.

85. The young person had no formal diagnosis regarding his mental health or otherwise prior to the offending. The Psychological Report of Ms Ahu Kocak dated 17 February 2026, recorded diagnoses of other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder, major depressive disorder (moderate severity, in remission but active at the time of series two), and conduct disorder (adolescent-onset type), cannabis use disorder and alcohol use disorder. A later report from Dr Bianca Calabria provided in July 2026 revisited those diagnoses which I will explore later in these reasons.

86. The young person has been engaging with cultural programs at Bimberi. At times he has struggled to feel connected to some of the content because it is not specific to his own mob. That said, he has engaged positively in programs delivered by Yeddung Mura and his participation created an environment where he felt comfortable to “open up” and discuss his own mental health struggles. They young person has a passion for art and has used it to express his cultural identity. The young person expressed a strong desire to return to country and continue to explore his culture and family connections.

87. The young person has been assisted by advocacy and support from the Office of the Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Young People. Staff from that Office will continue to advocate for the young person while he is detained and following his release “to ensure he has equitable access to culturally safe therapeutic support to support his overall wellbeing and in turn reduce his risk of reoffending.” Through Yeddung Mura the young person has successfully completed a 10 week intensive mental health and wellbeing program which targeted unhelpful thinking patterns, motivation, and goal setting.

88. At Bimberi the young person was described as displaying “a respectful and mature demeanour to staff and other young people” and has not “demonstrated any significant behavioural concerns and follows centre routines to a high standard”. The author of the pre-sentence report observed “[the young person] has demonstrated that he has the ability to be kind, caring and considerate of others and would not typically present as a callous person”.

89. The young person was assessed by Ms George as low risk of reoffending generally in custody and a moderate risk in the community. It was noted that he has “high needs” with respect to peer relations and substance abuse. The young person reported being “too scared” to participate in restorative justice processes but stated he would engage if he could do so by “writing a letter”. He was assessed as not suitable for community service work. Expert evidence

90. Psychologist Ms Edwige noted that child protection records revealed that in addition to early exposure to substance abuse and violence, the young person was subject to parental neglect including being left unsupervised with no access to basic necessities such as food and clean clothes. The young person denied exposure to sexual abuse and there is no record of such. Ms Edwige, in the same vein as other experts, suggested that the offending “raises clinical questions” regarding “possible learning pathways, including peer influence, media exposure or indirect learning environment”.

91. At the outset I observe, based on all the material, that any answers to those clinical questions would likely be found in the offence-specific therapy that the expert evidence demonstrates is necessary. As I have already recorded the young person reported watching pornography including content which contained choking. He explained that he considered the act of choking to be “normal”. Presently, the state of the evidence is such that there is no foundation to draw any conclusion about any reason for, or specific drivers of, the sexual nature of the young person’s conduct. As will become clear, his Neurodevelopmental Disorder provides some explanation where it diminishes his capacity for impulse control and identifying consequences. This is a matter to which I shall return when considering rehabilitation.

92. Ms Edwige considered that the young person’s exposure to cumulative traumas during his life, which includes consistent experience of traumatic events, have caused significant psychological harm and directly contributed to his challenges with substance misuse. She concluded: The available information suggests that his emotional and behavioural functioning is best understood within a framework of developmental trauma, adolescent substance misuse and situational stress. His developmental experiences are highly relevant to understanding his emotional regulation, coping strategies, peer affiliations, and vulnerability to substance misuse and risk-taking behaviour during adolescence. (Citations omitted.)

93. Ms Edwige also identified that family dysfunction, such as the kind the young person experienced, can disrupt development trajectory and contribute to Problem Sexual Behaviours (PSB) and Sexually Abusive Behaviour (SABs) in young people. Relevantly, Ms Edwige observed: Adolescence is a period characterised by ongoing neurological maturation, particularly in areas of impulse control, risk appraisal, and emotional regulation. [The young person’s] developmental stage, when combined with his history of cumulative adversity, exposure to instability within the family environment, and early onset substance misuse, likely reduced his capacity to regulate strong emotional states and make considered decisions at the time of the offences. His reported use of alcohol, cannabis, and MDMA is clinically significant, as intoxication during adolescence is associated with heightened impulsivity, reduced inhibition and impaired judgement.

94. Ms Edwige cited Australian Institute of Family Studies, Problem sexual behaviours and sexually abusive behaviours in Australian children and young people (CFCA Paper No. 46, 13 December 2017) when she observed: Literature suggests that complex structural and familial factors, such as family dysfunction and socio-economic disadvantage, can disrupt a child’s healthy developmental trajectory and contribute to their patterns of PSBs (Problem Sexual Behaviours) and SABs (Sexually Abusive Behaviours). Children and young people who display PSBs and SABs may have experienced cumulative harm to their development, which refers to “the effects of patterns of adverse circumstances and events in a child’s life, the daily impact of which can be profound and exponential”. It is further recognised in the literature that the ‘harmful behaviour is not innate to the young person, rather, the influences to which the child has been exposed play a role in shaping both the options and decision-making processes that lead to the problematic behaviour’.

95. Importantly, Ms Edwige highlighted the critical role that cultural connectivity can have in the mental health and wellbeing of the young person. Active engagement in cultural practices which centre connection to country and kin can be highly protective factors unique to First Nations People as a source of strength and resilience. In furtherance of which, Ms Edwige observed that supports promoting the young person’s engagement in activities which would strengthen and support his cultural identity would be of significant benefit.

96. Forensic and counselling psychologist, Dr Russell Pratt conducted a comprehensive ‘risk’ assessment of the young person applying the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP II) and the Structure Assessment of Protective Factors (youth version) (SAPROFYV).

97. Dr Pratt observed and concluded as follows: [The young person] presented as mature, thoughtful, empathetic and stable with a good sense of future orientation and very little observed distortion of the ‘facts of the matter’. No treatment has yet been undertaken with or by [the young person] directly related to his criminal matters (offence-focused). Based upon the results of the J-SOAP II, he presents as an excellent candidate for treatment engagement and success. For [the young person], I assessed that Bimberi YJDC provided himwith significant structure, supervision and support. From my interviews with staff, I noted the high esteem in which [the young person] was held. Staff at the centre viewed [the young person] as “…a great kid”. A staff member involved in teaching [the young person] within the schooling system noted to me that the whole school staff had been ‘rocked and impacted’ by [the young person’s] situation. In other words, they had become invested in [the young person] achieving good outcomes. Although care staff are generally supportive of the youth they engage in, this described level of impact is quite unusual. …. At present, [the young person] is well managed and well-contained within Bimberi. I believe that [the young person] has ‘thrived’ within this environment due to that very containment; strong boundaries, opportunities to engage in pro-social activities, including continued schooling, pro-social adult influences who also provide him with emotional support, and mental health support and assistance when required. …. I have little doubt that [the young person] will continue to both support his mother and be supportive of her. I am concerned about this relationship. There is no doubt they love each other, and also no doubt that [the mother] wants to support [the young person] going forward. However, [the mother’s] ability to focus on [the young person’s] needs over and above her own is severely compromised; she is simply too overwhelmed by her own past history, and current situation to be an effective support. In my opinion, [the young person] ‘takes on’ his mother’s angst. I cannot envisage him going to her for any real support. He simply would not wish to burden her with such. As such, the justice system should consider carefully what can be provided to [the young person] (in the form of a considerable period of probation supervision perhaps?) upon his release into the community. …. Whilst [the young person] has engaged very well with pro-social supports within Bimberi YJDC and also worked hard to remain substance free and not engage in anti-social behaviours, I have previously noted that he has not had the opportunity to engage in offence– specific treatment. In my opinion, this would be an integral process within a logical, comprehensive intervention to ensure [the young person] attains awareness of the triggers and drivers of his HSBs [Harmful Sexual Behaviours], as well as developing strategies to manage these into the future. It is clear to me that, although he clearly does not want to recidivate, [the young person] has little awareness and understanding of what led to those behaviours occurring on two separate occasions. In my opinion, both his anxiety and depression certainly contribute to risk, as did his substance use, as well as his isolation, leading to an inability to discuss what was going on for him with others, including close family members. …. Overall [the young person’s] scores on the J-SOAP II were suggestive of a reasonably mature adolescent whose HSBs were possibly driven by alcohol and substance use, a concerning lack of self-awareness of his emotional inner’ world, which likely included problems with self-image, connections to, and influence of antisocial peers (and a lack of pro-social peers), and a poor ability to cope with difficult and uncomfortable internal emotions, particularly anxiety, sadness, and depression. His inability, - perhaps discomfort and reluctance – to share any distress he feels with his mother and siblings, results in his ‘carrying the heavy load’ he feels all by himself. I formed the opinion that his mother cares for him but was simply overwhelmed by her own experiences and problems, with few strategies and/or abilities to contain and manage those to herself, meaning her children, particularly [the young person], being acutely aware not to place further emotional load (i.e.; ‘their’ problems and issues) onto her. … Further, whilst presenting as reasonably mature, in my opinion, [the young person] had few strategies in place to manage the strong negative emotions he so obviously experienced. …. It appeared he was so overwhelmed by the situation he found himself in because of the March 2025 events that he formed the opinion that his only way of coping was to kill himself. During our interview, when we commenced discussing the March 2025 and May 2025 assaults, [the young person] immediately became emotionally overwhelmed and shut down. …. Whilst it appeared he has succeeded in ‘bettering’ himself whilst he has been incarcerated, and has connected with supportive staff and services, it is my opinion that he still struggles to cope with intense emotions. The emotional ‘inner world’ appears to still be an ‘unknown’ to him, and as such, he does not deal well when intense feelings arise. Dur to this, [the young person] lacks the skills necessary to effectively deal with everyday problems he might encounter, when they result in him experiencing strong emotions and feelings. He simply does not appear to cope. …. I do not consider that [the young person] poses a risk to the victims of the matters currently before the courts. [The young person] presented as remorseful, somewhat ashamed of his behaviour, and at no time have I noted any malice toward the victims expressed by [the young person]. …. Combining the results of the J-SOAP II, the SAPROF YV, and considering all other information gathered, I assessed [the young person] to be currently at a low-moderate risk of future sexually violent and/or violent recidivism. Of note; I also formed the opinion that [the young person’s] risk would also reduce considerably; likely to a low risk of future sexually violent and/or violent recidivism, once he has engaged (successfully) in an offence-specific treatment program.

98. Dr Pratt concluded that the young person’s shame around his conduct and his inability to properly ‘confront’ that shame leaves him vulnerable to self-harming behaviour, as well as at risk of harming others, when experiencing a high level of shame, depression and anxiety.

99. Forensic psychologist Ms Kocak determined that the young person was in the moderate risk band overall for sexual offending which means he does not “demonstrate the profile of a chronically high-risk youth sexual offender, but there are clearly identified clinical and contextual vulnerabilities that could elevate risk if not addressed”. He was assessed as presenting a “moderate general violence risk under destabilising circumstances”. Ms Kocak determined that the young person’s ability to make appropriate judgments was partially impaired by the conditions she considered he suffered with, whilst his ability to make calm, rational choices or think clearly were impaired to a significant degree. She found that his psychological conditions had a significant disinhibiting effect upon him and contributed to the offending conduct. Ms Kocak determined: It is my opinion that the mental health conditions identified had a meaningful impact on his psychological functioning at the time of the offending. These conditions did not deprive him of an understanding that his conduct was wrong. However, they are relevant to understanding the extent to which his capacity for judgement, emotional regulation, and behavioural restraint was compromised. … In [the young person’s] case his background of sustained exposure to family violence is consistent with this pattern of heightened arousal and difficulty regulating intense affect. …. In causal terms, the identified disorders contributed to the offending in that they created a psychological context of heightened emotional vulnerability, reduced impulse control, and increased susceptibility to disinhibition. Trauma–related hyperarousal, depressive hopelessness, and intoxication likely interacted to reduce his ability to manage impulses in high-stress moments. Peer-reviewed literature supports the view that such factors increase the likelihood of reactive and impulsive violence in adolescents. That said, these conditions did not compel the behaviour, nor did they remove his capacity for voluntary action. They are better understood as significant contributing factors rather than determinative causes. (Citations omitted.)

100. Like Ms Edwige, Ms Kocak concluded Taken together, the evidence suggests that at the time of the offending [the young person’s] sexual maturity and decision-making capacity were developmentally immature and compromised by substance use, emotional dysregulation, and limited pro-social mentoring. His behaviour appears more consistent with impulsive, poorly regulated adolescent misconduct occurring in destabilising circumstances than with entrenched deviant sexual pathology.

101. Helpfully, a letter authored by Dr Justin Barker, Chair of the Therapeutic Support Panel for Children and Young People (TSP) suggested that the young person would benefit from a full assessment to determine whether he has Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FASD). The TSP was introduced in 2024 as part of the response to the Territory raising the age of criminal responsibility. Dr Barker indicated that the TSP would welcome the opportunity to re-consider involvement with the young person after an initial referral to the panel in 2025.

102. As a result, the young person was assessed in July 2026 by Dr Bianca Calabria, a clinical psychologist, who determined that the young person does not have FASD but concluded he does have a Neurodevelopmental Disorder. Dr Calabria’s report was the result of a comprehensive assessment and considered all the available material including the diagnoses of Ms Kocak. Ms Kocak, a forensic psychologist, was not asked to re-consider her conclusions in light of those expressed by Dr Calabria.

103. I have preferred the diagnosis of Dr Calabria given her comprehensive explanation as to why Neurodevelopmental Disorder better explains the young person’s characteristics and presentation. This preference does not undermine any conclusions or observation of Ms Kocak; Dr Calabria’s findings are not inconsistent with them. Rather, Dr Calabria considered that the diagnosis of Neurodevelopmental Disorder better explained the young person’s psychological and cognitive presentation and better revealed the true extent of his challenges and the risk he would present in the future.

104. Dr Calabria explained that the Neurodevelopmental Disorder best explains behaviours previously attributed to Conduct Disorder: For example, “a repetitive and persistent pattern of behaviour in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated” (DSM-5-TR Conduct Disorder), can be explained by [the young person] having difficulty learning from consequences, and not thinking through the potential outcomes before acting, due to a Neurodevelopmental Disorder.

105. Dr Calabria also considered that the young person’s emotion dysregulation, including low mood, was better explained by a severe deficit in emotional and behavioural regulation (characteristic of a Neurodevelopmental Disorder) than by major depressive disorder.

106. Dr Calabria otherwise confirmed a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder (severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment), alcohol use disorder (moderate, in sustained remission in a controlled environment) and unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder.

107. Dr Calabria set out that Neurodevelopmental Disorders are “complex permanent disabilities present from birth”. In the young person’s case, he does not meet the diagnostic criteria for any of the specified Neurodevelopmental Disorders which include autism, ADHD, specific learning disorders and intellectual developmental disorders. Dr Calabria observed: Individuals who have a neurodevelopmental disorder are often misunderstood. These individuals may not be capable of conceptualising the impacts of their behaviour on others and they are often unable to autonomously change their behaviour. Therefore, substantial and long-term supports are essential to ensure behaviour change and support. Individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders are often overrepresented in the legal and justice systems because criminal behaviour may be influenced by limited control over impulses and an inability to consider predictable cause and effect outcomes. Imprisonment is not usually an effective deterrent and rarely result in rehabilitation for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders, due to inability to link cause and effect outcomes, and therefore rates of recidivism are high. Difficulty navigating the various stages of the legal system can also contribute to very high recidivism rates. [The young person] requires very substantial supports to reduce any risk posed to the community.

108. Dr Calabia concluded that the young person has “severe deficits” in the areas of executive functioning, emotional and behavioural regulation, literacy and numeracy skills and adaptive/social functioning. Additionally, he has “some deficits” in cognitive abilities and attention as well as communication which requires additional assessment.

109. Dr Calabria found that the young person “will have very significant difficulty independently complying with orders imposed by the Supreme Court (i.e., he needs very substantial support). This will not be intentional but rather a demonstration of [the young person’s] severe neurodevelopmental deficits”. Dr Calabria further observed: Additionally, [the young person] has been exposed to family violence and instability in his family home. While his mother clearly has love for her son, she also reported long-term and ongoing difficulties faced by the family and the subsequent negative impact on [the young person]. Specifically, exposure to substance misuse, physical/corporal punishment, witnessing severe emotion dysregulation and distress, lack of interpersonal boundaries, and other problematic behaviours. These environmental factors have likely had a detrimental impact on [the young person’s] development of justice and his understanding of pro-social behaviours, especially in the context of his very low cognitive functioning and emotional dysregulation. Records reviewed for this assessment highlight a disconnect between what [the young person] says his values are and his behaviours. Specifically, he said that he values and respect women, and he is accused of engaging in acts that hurt and harm women. This demonstrates that what [the young person] believes or communicates might not be aligned with how he behaves. [The young person] demonstrated difficulties with speech and communication during this evaluation. A comprehensive speech and communication assessment is required (by speech pathologist) to fully understand the impact of speech and communication on [the young person’s] capacity to comply with orders (e.g., receptive and expressive language deficits would further limit his capacity to comply with orders). (Citations omitted.)

110. The young person’s severe neurodevelopmental deficits include (but are not limited to) the following: (a) difficulty comprehending verbal and written communication; (b) inability to learn from consequences (i.e., incarceration or punishment will not lead to behaviour change); (c) difficulty regulating emotions and distress, and impulsive behaviour associated with deregulated emotional experiences and urges (e.g., sexual urges); (d) difficulty understanding and conceptualising time and other numerical information; (e) difficulty thinking logically and solving problems in novel situations (i.e., situations that he has not previously experienced and/or has no prior knowledge about); (f) tendency to assimilate in social settings and therefore he is vulnerable to manipulation from others that may influence his behaviours; and (g) difficulty planning and organising to achieve goals.

111. Significantly, Dr Calabria determined that the young person would require “24/7 wraparound support throughout his life” which she outlined should be designed to: (a) Provide 24/7 assisted-living; (b) establish a set routine and support the young person to consistently participate; (c) support initiation and completion of daily tasks (e.g., cooking, grocery shopping, cleaning, paying bills); (d) organise and support engagement in daily schedule tasks and activities that the young person is interested in (e.g., art, gardening, gym) to divert the young person from risky behaviours; (e) assist the young person to engage with and implement recommendations made by practitioners; (f) facilitate collaborative problem-solving, including thinking through various options to a problem, potential consequences, and effective solution, how to put the solution into action, and how to monitor how it went (the young person will require support each time this occurs, he will not learn to do this independently); (g) ensure the young person is safe from interpersonal issues with others who might misinterpret his social cues or who might take advantage of him.

112. Dr Calabria noted that any supports should understand the need for a ‘neurodiversity-affirming approach’ and should be in place for at least 36 months. Remorse

113. The following observations about remorse demonstrated by the young person must be understood in the context of Dr Pratt’s observation that the young person remains challenged emotionally with being able to confront the full extent of his conduct. They should also be understood through the prism of the explanations from Dr Calabria about the effects on the young person’s communication and presentation of his Neurodevelopmental Disorder. Dr Pratt found that the young person is unable to tolerate the intense shame and guilt he feels about his offending conduct and as a result will “shut down” when asked to discuss the offending.

114. Overall, the material captured that the young person is ashamed of his conduct and “sorry” for the harm he has caused to the victims. Series 1

115. The young person expressed that he was intoxicated and unable to control himself. He reported that he was unable to recall many of the specific features of the offending though consistently expressed distress and remorse for his actions. The young person could not explain why he engaged in the offending conduct.

116. He acknowledged that he intentionally led the victim away from her group of friends to have sexual intercourse with her. Consistent with statements attributed to him in the PSR, the young person was recorded by Ms Edwige to say (about the victim) “I am sorry. Hope she can move forward. I am really, really sorry for all the things I have done”. Series 2

117. The young person stated that after the series 1 offences he experienced intense guilt and shame regarding the charges and suicidal ideation. The young person reported that in response to anxiety associated with his court appearance for the series 1 offences he consumed MDMA. He reported an intention to end his own life and feelings of depression.

118. The young person was unable to explain his offending behaviour stating, “it feels like something took over” and “I don’t know why I did this”. Consistent with statements attributed to him by the author of the PSR, the young person stated to Ms Edwige: I wanted to kill myself because I had court that morning for the other stuff. I just thought it would be better if I wasn’t there. I was really emotional. Emotions were all over the place. I am sorry for what I have done and the person I have hurt. She would have been traumatised or really upset. Feel a lot of shame about this. Don’t know why I have done these things. I don’t know how words can explain it. Every time I speak about it I cry. I don’t know what to do. I’m scared and ashamed. I feel like everyone is judging me, so I don’t want to speak to them about it.

119. I am satisfied based on the material before me that, to the extent that he is able, the young person has expressed remorse and victim empathy. Maturity, state of development and culpability

120. In MT, the Court observed at [60]: The distinction between a young person’s “individual maturity” and their “state of development” is opaque. However, the former may refer to a young person’s cognitive development (their capacity to understand, make reasoned decisions and reflect before acting, matters which may logically inform culpability) and the latter may refer to their social and moral maturity (their ability to appreciate and comply with social norms and expectations).

121. There are observations which I have already extracted from the material which note or commend the young person’s ‘maturity’. He has an exemplary record of conduct on remand. He is held in high regard by staff and perceived as demonstrating leadership qualities. An assessment of his maturity, in line with the Court of Appeal’s observation in MT, must take into account the effect of his Neurodevelopment Disorder. Plainly, it affects the young person’s capacity for making reasoned decisions including the capacity to reflect on the consequences of his choices. An assessment of the young person’s state of development must similarly take into account his Neurodevelopment Disorder. Plainly it affects his capacity to understand, regulate emotions, urges and comply with social rules.

122. The material supports a finding that the young person’s maturity and state of development are materially and detrimentally affected by his Neurodevelopmental Disorder.

123. Added to which is consideration of the young person’s profoundly deprived background. All the material supports a conclusion that the childhood experience of the young person has substantially contributed to his state of development. The expert evidence drew upon the body of research which indicates that adverse, traumatic events in childhood can disrupt development of secure attachment, emotional regulation and adaptive coping skills. Ms Kocak observed that: adolescents raised in such environments often rely more heavily on peers for behavioural norms and may have reduced internalised boundaries around risk-taking behaviour. [The Young person’s] early and heavy substance use further impaired impulse control and judgment during critical developmental periods.

124. Ms Edwige similarly observed that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2015 Examination of Children Affected by Domestic and Family Violence highlighted that the impact of exposure to violence in the family home has been associated with the “highest likelihood of behavioural difficulties” and “infants who experience extremes of abuse or neglect are at risk of failure to thrive, reduced brain size, impaired development and ongoing mental health issues”.

125. Whilst causal connection is unnecessary to enliven the application of Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy), there is undoubtedly correlation between the young person’s disadvantage and the offending conduct where it revealed the use of violence (series 1 and 2) and involved the consumption of alcohol (series 1) and the use of illicit substances (series 2); both of which he was exposed to from a young age.

126. Relevantly in NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73 Yehia J with whom Ball JA and Fagan J agreed, said at [100]-[102]: The assessment of moral culpability is made by reference to matters subjective to an offender. That assessment is not made by a consideration of factors removed from an offender’s subjective circumstances. An offender’s moral culpability may be reduced by reason of a background of deprivation, mental health conditions and youth. In some cases, there will be an interplay between several subjective factors that may have a cumulative effect on the reduction of moral culpability. It is incumbent upon a sentencing judge to first assess whether that background operates to reduce the offender’s moral blameworthiness for the offending. For example, the exposure to domestic and family violence or alcohol and drug use, during an offender’s formative years, may operate to normalise that conduct such as to have an impact upon their capacity to reason, appreciate the full wrongfulness of their actions, control their conduct, understand the consequences of their offending, and may impair their capacity for emotional regulation, and increase immaturity and impulsivity. A sentencing judge is then required to consider how the offender’s reduced moral culpability, and the reason for that reduction, bears upon the weight to be attached to the various sentencing factors such as general and specific deterrence, protection of the community, retribution and promotion of rehabilitation. [Citations omitted. Emphasis added.]

127. There was no contest from the prosecution that the young person’s disadvantaged background (which involves consideration of his past and present family circumstances) and his Neurodevelopmental Disorder (which effects his maturity and state of development) operate to reduce his moral blameworthiness for the offending. The effect of these factors on the young person’s culpability is ‘cumulative’. This finding recognises that, because of his Neurodevelopmental Disorder and his early exposure to severe violence and substance abuse, he is necessarily a 15-year-old who has fewer internal resources available to him to guide his decision making. I will come to the effect of this finding on the purposes of sentencing further on in these reasons.

128. It is important to record that while I am satisfied that those factors explain the offending to a degree, they did not directly cause the offending. Neither factor undermined the young person’s capacity to know the offending was wrong. Accordingly, a reduction in the young person’s moral culpability is not inconsistent with my finding that at the time engaged in the conduct the young person knew that his conduct was wrong and that neither victim was consenting. Therapeutic Correction Order (TCO) Assessment

129. The TCOAR recorded many of the matters referred to in the PSR to which I have already referred. The report confirmed that the ‘plan’ for the young person upon his release is for him to return to live with his mother who continues to express strong support for the young person and a belief that she can provide a stable and consistent home environment for the young person with the cooperation of his older siblings.

130. The report included a more recent description of the young person by a teacher in the Murrumbidgee program which categorised him as “an outstanding student” who displays “strong leadership qualities”. The young person can continue to be supported by the education transition officer for up to 12 weeks following his release. He has been connected to ‘Corroboree Group’, an Indigenous employment program for employment support and this can continue in the community.

131. The author of the report, Ms George, gave evidence in the proceedings and explained that because of Dr Calabria’s report the young person’s mother would be supported to apply for his inclusion in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The TCOAR recorded that the young person does not have an acute mental illness or any physical conditions and he remains abstinent from drug and alcohol use. The young person can immediately upon his release participate in the ‘Road to Recovery’ program as well as the ‘Winnunga Road to Recovery’ program (delivered by Winnunga Nimityjah Aboriginal Health Service) with the aim to develop a relapse prevention plan.

132. The report noted that Youth Justice and Adolescent Services intended to fund a gym membership for the young person for three months upon his release. Ms George confirmed in her evidence that whether in custody or in the community, weekly therapy with Dr Cristian Torres will be arranged to give effect to recommendations made by Dr Pratt and Dr Calabria about the need for offence-specific therapy. An allocation has been made for only 12 months of that therapy with a possibility for “review”.

133. Ms Goerge recorded in the report that the young person identified two main goals upon his release. One was to abstain from drug and alcohol use, and the other was to obtain employment. He confirmed his willingness to engage with all supports available to him. The TCOAR recorded the young person’s strong relationships with Bimberi staff and his positive contribution to the environment at Bimberi. The young person was deemed ‘suitable’ for a Therapeutic Correction Order and as a result a draft Therapeutic Correction Plan (TCP) was annexed to the TCOAR consistent with the supports and programs identified as suitable and available for the young person.

134. In her evidence Ms George was not able to identify any meaningful difference between the support that would be offered to the young person by way of supervision from Youth Justice under a suspended sentence order and the support which would be offered under a TCO. The difference, Ms George suggested, between the two orders would be that under a TCO a more strict approach to ‘breaches’ would be taken. Ms George was unaware of any other Youth Justice matter where ‘offence-specific therapy’ for sexual offending had been approved as part of the funding allocated for supervision. She did explain that the young person is “probably one of my only sexual offending clients”.

135. Ms George stated in evidence that “all of Dr Calabria’s ‘things’ are disability based” and as a result the expectation of Youth Justice is that the kind of support contemplated in the report of Dr Calabria would be provided by the NDIS. She explained that the involvement of the NDIS “may change the plan” (a reference to the TCO) and that “the plan can be reviewed at any time that things change”. Ms George also stated: … any disability services recommended would need to be discussed with NDIS should we get that application done. … I think the idea of us getting access to these services as well is quite difficult, some of the things that …because they just – they’re not in the youth space and they’re very expensive things to do. So the NDIS have better access to these things, and they also have support to get him going to these programs and things like that. … So that’s why we’re going through the NDIS. Should that not happen, that’s when we would need to have a discussion with management about can we get these services and how we fund them. And it will be put into the plan, whatever that is.

136. Ms George confirmed that the young person, and separately his mother, had met with Dr Calabria. She also confirmed that under a TCO the young person would be seen by a support service five days a week. The TCO case plan included a relapse prevention program for six weeks upon his release before a focus on employment and/or education. This would be the plan which would be enacted regardless of whether a good behaviour order as part of a suspended sentence order was imposed, or a TCO was imposed. Rehabilitation

137. Applying ch 8A, I must consider the purpose of promoting the rehabilitation of the young offender. I may give rehabilitation more weight than any other purpose of sentencing.

138. All the material supports a finding that, necessary for the young person’s rehabilitation is a regime of intensive support across a range of areas as well as a long-term program of therapy-based offence-specific intervention.

139. Dr Calabria reiterated the need for supports to be culturally responsive and to use strengths-based holistic care “including understanding the historical and continued negative impacts of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as indigenous holistic concepts of health and well-being”. She highlighted the need for the young person to be provided with substantial support when engaging with the legal system or probation services citing his neurodevelopmental disorder as a significant risk factor for misunderstanding. His communication needs are such that he needs information provided to him simply, clearly and at a reduced or slower pace. This is relevant to a consideration of what is necessary to enhance compliance in the community.

140. Dr Calabria also emphasised that the young person would require very substantial support and accommodations in education and employment settings including apprenticeship type contexts.

141. Ms Edwige noted that good practice working with young people who commit sexual offences is now understood to constitute a focus on the involvement of the family as opposed to an approach characterised by isolated individual therapy: Australian Institute of Family Studies, Problem sexual behaviours and sexually abusive behaviours in Australian children and young people (CFCA Paper no. 46, 13 December 2017). Standard practice she suggested is to “use a collaborative, multi-agency approach to deliver promising and preferred treatment that focuses on holistic, ecosystemic and family/caregiver elements that the support the young person and their family”. Ms Kocak similarly observed.

142. Dr Calabria recommended the young person would require at least 36 months of offence-specific therapy. Dr Pratt considered 12 months would be the minimum period required for offence-specific therapy. This is consistent with recommendations made by Ms Edwige and Ms Kocak about the need for long-term intervention.

143. The evidence suggested that the young person was overwhelmed by stress in relation to the series 1 offences on the day he committed series 2 offences and in addition to engaging in the criminal conduct, he attempted to self-harm. I have already recorded that the suggestion that he was ‘confused’ about the nature of his interaction with the victim of the series 1 offences or influenced by watching pornography to a significant degree must be rejected. The young person himself did not offer an explanation for his offending to any of the experts who assessed him.

144. The unchallenged expert evidence establishes that because of the young person’s Neurodevelopmental Disorder he will experience “Difficulty regulating emotions and distress, and impulsive behaviour associated with deregulated emotional experiences and urges (e.g., sexual urges);”. This offers some explanation for the sexual nature of the conduct for the purposes of considering rehabilitation though clearly raises concern about the extent to which it might be avoided in the future.

145. The conclusion I draw from the expert opinions is that the offence-specific therapy which both Dr Pratt and Dr Calabria insist is necessary, is key to the young person’s rehabilitation and essential to guard community safety. So too, support and holistic, substantial intervention for the young person to be able to manage and understand the effect of his Neurodevelopmental Disorder on his capacity, in particular, for impulse control.

146. The conclusion that the young person is unlikely to change his behaviour in the face of punishment and one-on-one support is necessary to assist him to manage challenging behaviours and requires careful consideration.

147. The expert evidence acknowledged the stability and routine that the custodial environment has offered to him. Dr Pratt in particular raised concerns about the environment in his family home to which he would return and its capacity to support his reform, notwithstanding the earnestness of the intentions of those who love him. Dr Pratt interviewed the young person’s mother directly. He observed her parenting struggles in the context of her own challenges and the resultant absence of boundaries and routine. Without detracting from the strong bonds, the young person has with his siblings, they all have their own challenges with substance use and have engaged with the criminal justice system. This will limit the effectiveness of any support they can offer to him and only adds to the concern about the capacity of the home environment to support his long-term rehabilitation where they also reside from time to time, if not full time.

148. The value of structure and routine for the young person is reflected in his achievements in education and his abstinence since his remand in 2025. His progress on remand demonstrates his real capacity for rehabilitation where the needs created by the challenges of his Neurodevelopmental Disorder can be accommodated.

149. I am satisfied that the young person is motivated to engage with programs and supports designed to bring about real change in his life. He is remorseful and ashamed of his conduct, he recognises the harm he has directly caused, and he wants to avoid engaging in this kind of behaviour in the future. His progress is inextricably linked to abstinence from alcohol and drugs. The young person is clearly capable of abstinence; all the material recorded his success in this regard since his remand, specifically the ‘ease’ with which he appeared to adapt to sobriety whilst on remand.

150. All of which is to say that critical to the young person’s ability to bring about his future aspirations and promote rehabilitation (and in turn, community safety), is consistent access to and engagement with supports, programs and therapeutic intervention. I am satisfied that if the young person can engage with the offence-specific therapy the experts agree is necessary and remain engaged with targeted programs and supports for a protracted period, he has very good prospects for rehabilitation. The TCO provisions

151. A TCO can be made if a young person has been convicted or found guilty of an offence and is discretionary: s 133XB of the Sentencing Act. A TCO must be for a period not longer than four years: s 133XC of the Sentencing Act.

152. The prosecution submitted that the imposition of a TCO would fail to adequately capture the seriousness of the offending and risk community safety. Submissions made on the young person’s behalf sought the imposition of a TCO taking into account the time in pre-sentence custody. This is the consistent with the approach taken in DPP v Lloyd (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 110 (Lloyd) where a young offender was sentenced to a term of full-time imprisonment for a fixed period and then made subject to a TCO for a further period. The TCO commenced on the same day the term of imprisonment expired. From the judgment, this approach does not appear to have been the subject of any substantial argument by the parties. The Director contends that the approach is prohibited by proper application of the TCO provisions.

153. Section 133XB(4) provides: The court must not fail to impose a sentence that the circumstances of the offence would ordinarily require only to allow the court to make a therapeutic correction order.

154. The Explanatory Statement for the Justice (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which saw the insertion of the Therapeutic Correction Order regime into the Sentencing Act (states at page 21): The bill introduces a new community-based sentencing option, a therapeutic correction order (TCO) without a sentence of imprisonment attached. The TCO is intended to be a more intensive therapeutic order for those young offenders for whom a good behaviour order does not have a strong enough therapeutic benefit.

155. And further (at page 63 and 64): New Section 133XB allows for the court to make a TCO. The TCO can only be made where a young offender has been convicted or found guilty of an offence and cannot be made if the young offender is already subject to a ‘sentencing order’ as defined in subsection (8). This prevents the concurrent ordering of a TCO with a sentence which may result in a period of detention for the young offender. … Given the intention is that the TCO will sit between a Good Behaviour Order and a Suspended Sentence Order in the sentencing hierarchy, the targeted cohort for the TCO is young offenders who require additional support and resources to address multiple or complex needs.

156. Relevantly, with the insertion of a TCO as a sentencing option for young offenders, s 133G (3) of the Sentencing Act which sets out a ‘combination sentence’ was not amended to include the option to make a TCO.

157. There is reference in the Explanatory Statement for the Justice (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (see for example page 62) to the TCO “being designed using aspects of the Intensive Corrections Order and the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, both of which are available in the ACT to adults, but not to young offenders”. Such a reference potentially conflates the approach necessary to apply for the making of such orders. It is necessary for the making of an ICO and a DATO for a period of imprisonment to first be imposed: s 11 and s 12A of the Sentencing Act. This requirement is not replicated by the text of the provision which provides the court with power to make a TCO: s 133XB of the Sentencing Act.

158. Section 11 of the Sentencing Act provides the power to a sentencing court to make an intensive correction order (ICO) for an adult offender, which applies only in circumstances where the “court imposes a sentence of imprisonment”. Under s 11 the sentencing court may order that the sentence of imprisonment be served by intensive correction in the community (an ICO).

159. Similarly, a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO) applies in circumstances where an adult offender pleads guilty to an ‘eligible offence’, and this Court sentences the offender to a term of imprisonment: s 12A(1)(b). The DATO is made by virtue of an order by the sentencing court suspending the term of imprisonment: s 12A(2).

160. A plain reading of the text of s 133XB, specifically subsection (4) and the references to the intention behind the creation of the TCO as a sentencing option in the Explanatory Statement extracted above, in particular the reference to it being an option “without a sentence of imprisonment attached”, can only result in a conclusion that a TCO is not an alternative to a period of full-time imprisonment in the same way as an ICO and DATO.

161. Accordingly, the question I must resolve is whether the offending warrants the imposition of the ‘last resort’. Namely, whether, considering possible alternatives the only appropriate outcome is a period of imprisonment. If the answer to that question is ‘yes’ then I must consider the imposition of a combination sentence which can consist only of “the sentence of imprisonment and a good behaviour order with a supervision condition”: s 133G(3). The only alternative to a combination sentence, for young offenders, is a fixed term of imprisonment noting the prohibition on the imposition of a non-parole period and the exclusion of young offenders from the making of a DATO or an ICO.

162. I observe here that the stated intention of a TCO to provide more intense supervision than would be offered to a young person under a good behaviour order was not reflected in the evidence in these proceedings. The only difference identified as between the two kinds of order was the capacity for discretion in responding to breach conduct.

163. Accordingly, the TCO regime in my view only has application where a determination is made that the offending does not warrant the imposition of a period of imprisonment. This is consistent with the intention that a TCO “sit between” a good behaviour order and a suspended sentence order. Unlike an ICO and DATO which require a conclusion that sentence of imprisonment is warranted, a TCO therefore is a “possible alternative” when coming to consider the ‘last resort’ that a term of imprisonment represents for young offenders and the state of satisfaction necessary in order that s 10 apply. Criminal history

164. The young person has one entry on his criminal history for a driving offence in 2023 for which he received a non-conviction order. Conditional liberty and time in custody

165. The young person was on bail at the time he committed the second series. The commission of the second series represents a betrayal of the opportunity given to him to remain in the community. This is an aggravating factor and is relevant to a determination of the appropriate outcome for the series 2 offences.

166. The young person has been on remand since his arrest for the second series of offences on 26 May 2025. He spent an additional day in custody when he was arrested for the first series. The sentence I impose will take the time in pre-sentence custody into account. Pleas of Guilty

167. The young person entered pleas of guilty to the offending in series 1 and 2 in the ACT Children’s Court. The pleas of guilty had significant utilitarian value noting that they spared the victims in particular the ordeal of giving evidence and being subject to cross examination. I will reduce the sentences I impose by 25% in recognition of the substantial value the young person’s early acceptance of responsibility had to the administration of justice. Comparable outcomes

168. An emphasis on individualised justice does not mean that comparable sentencing outcomes are an irrelevant consideration. Annexed to these reasons is a summary of comparable outcomes, some of them drawn to my attention by the parties. The sentencing outcomes range from substantial terms of imprisonment to simple good behaviour orders. This range is consistent with the wide circumstances in which this kind of offending occurs, the particular emphasis on rehabilitation and individualised justice for young offenders and the variety in subjective circumstances. No sentence is a precedent, nor does the ‘range’ limit the sentencing discretion of this court.

169. It can be observed that R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24, like series 2 involved a random attack on a woman in public, though the offender’s moral culpability was not significantly reduced by any matter in his subjective case. Some of the other outcomes involved less serious conduct than I am to sentence the young person for and only one victim.

170. In Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 140 involved only one victim who was the subject of multiple offences which involved additional acts of violence. The offences in that matter were each aggravated by the family violence context and the maximum penalties were severe as a result. Determination

171. Counsel for the young person at the outset sensibly accepted that the seriousness of the offending in this case could only be properly marked by the imposition of a term of imprisonment.

172. A submission was advanced by counsel for the young person that the sentence I impose should give effect to his suitability for an TCO. It was submitted that I could determine to impose a fixed period of full-time imprisonment for some of the offences and deal with the remaining offences by the making of a TCO to commence on the day the fixed period of imprisonment expired.

173. I accept that this approach is theoretically not precluded by application of the TCO provisions, but it would first require a conclusion that a period of imprisonment was not warranted for the remaining offences. I also accept that a sentencing court could find, prioritising rehabilitation and recognising that service of the fixed term had given effect to other considerations such as personal deterrence and punishment, that any remaining offences could be appropriately dealt with by a “possible alternative”, namely a TCO and the ‘last resort’ could be avoided for the remaining offences.

174. This is somewhat analogous to the approach in Lloyd though in that matter the young offender was sentenced for only one offence for which he received both a sentence of full-time imprisonment and a TCO. My conclusions with respect to the operation of the TCO legislation do not account for such an outcome in relation to only one offence.

175. Moderation of the young person’s moral culpability which arises from factors entirely outside of his control, his Neurodevelopmental Disorder (his maturity and state of development) and his profoundly deprived background (his past and present family circumstances) should operate to substantially reduce, though not extinguish, the weight of general deterrence and denunciation. This approach is consistent both with the application of Bugmy and with the purpose and effect of the ‘particular provisions’ which require an emphasis on individualised justice, and which must be applied to young offenders: see MT at [35]-[43] and [53]-[66].

176. Of course, I am obliged to consider the effect of those factors on the other purposes of sentencing. The effect of them in this case reveals the need for the sentence imposed to deter the young person and critically, to protect the community. On the material before me while ever the needs of the young person brought about by his deprived background and his Neurodevelopmental Disorder remain unaddressed, he presents a risk to safety; his own and that of the community. Added to which is the clear need for him to engage in offence-specific treatment so that the supports and assistance he requires, specifically in respect of sexual offending, may be properly understood.

177. Accordingly, an outcome which promotes the young person’s rehabilitation is one which will meaningfully, consistently and substantially provide him with: (a) The tools to understand, navigate and address the challenges which arise from his Neurodevelopment Disorder. (b) The treatment to address the psychological, emotional and behavioural effects of his disadvantaged background and maintain his sobriety. (c) Opportunity to strengthen his cultural connectivity and to encourage proud, positive expressions of his Kamilaroi identity; and (d) The therapeutic offence-specific opportunity to confront the nature of his offending and develop the tools necessary to guard against it in the future.

178. The young person evidently has a strong capacity for rehabilitation; demonstrated by his substantial progress in custody, reflected in the high regard in which he is held as a detainee, a student and a leader. These are his first offences of any significance. Rehabilitation should have substantial weight in the sentence I impose.

179. Sexual assault occurs in a variety of contexts; the offending in this case is representative of the kind of unpredictable, frightening, random acts which cause women and girls to move around in the world ever vigilant about their safety from men and boys who would seek to harm them. In each case, the young person brutally violated the freedom and autonomy that each victim was entitled to exercise. His conduct has had severe consequences.

180. There is a compelling need for the sentence to recognise the devastating harm caused by the young person’s conduct. The prospect of the grave harm brought about by this kind of offending, and indeed suffered by the victims in this matter, is reflected in the maximum penalties which apply. The substantial penalties demonstrate the seriousness with which the community expects sentencing courts to treat sexual offences and violent offences committed with a sexual intent.

181. The gravity of the offending is such that the purpose of rehabilitating the young person, whilst a compelling, central consideration, should not entirely eclipse the need to recognise the harm he caused, to deter him from offending, to hold him accountable and to protect the community.

182. Acknowledging that a term of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort and that individualised justice requires particular attention, I am satisfied that the only appropriate outcome for each offence in this case, having considered possible alternatives including the making of a TCO, is a term of imprisonment.

183. The term I impose must be the shortest appropriate term. This involves a consideration of what is ‘appropriate’, taking into account the findings I have made and the purposes of sentencing which I have determined should be given effect.

184. Of course, as the young person is being sentenced for multiple offences I must determine the term for each offence and then consider questions of concurrency and cumulation and apply the totality principle. The outcome must, applying the requirement that the term must be the shortest appropriate, capture the overall criminality of the conduct and be just and appropriate.

185. The prosecution accepted that there is justification for substantial concurrency as between the offences committed in series 1 given the offending, whilst protracted with multiple, distinct sexual and violent acts, was a single episode of criminal conduct. Series 2 similarly warrants considerable concurrency. Whilst each series was entirely separate, to ensure the outcome is just and appropriate and for the shortest appropriate term, there will be a need for some concurrency between the two series.

186. The unchallenged expert evidence is that ‘punishment’ alone is unlikely to bring about behavioural change for the young offender. So much can be accepted. However, it is undeniable, given the young person’s progress, that the custodial environment is operating to support his rehabilitation at a critical time. The young person is demonstrating the reform he is capable of, and the positive influence that he is susceptible to, when he is in a stable environment that supports his sobriety.

187. The only ‘plan’ for the young person on release is a return to live with his mother. I readily accept she loves the young person and only wants the best for him. Her capacity to bring about what is in his best interest appears to be significantly impaired, sadly it would seem, because of her own experience of violence and dysfunction. The young person’s mother has engaged with many of the report writers and is being actively assisted to access additional supports for the young person including by seeking his inclusion in the NDIS. But, the reality is that the environment to which the young person would return has not transformed in the time he has been on remand.

188. The environment to which the young person would return is the environment that saw him commence illicit substance use and abuse alcohol. It is the environment that saw him exposed to severe violence and criminal offending through the relationship between his parents and later, his older siblings. Dr Pratt’s concerns in terms of the risk a return to the family home would present to the progress he has made cannot be dismissed. It is a concern which raises a real question about the capacity for that environment to be a protective factor for the young person and for the community.

189. There is a real risk that the young person’s rehabilitation, and community safety, will be undermined by the plan for him to reside at home and for support to be implemented only five days a week (noting Dr Calabria’s view as to the extent of the support he requires). In particular, the necessity for the young person to engage in offence-specific therapy would be, in the community, entirely reliant on his ongoing participation. His capacity for that will be significantly influenced by the support he receives in the community, especially from his family. Likewise, relapse prevention, noting that the current plan offers the young person only a 6-week relapse prevention program upon his release. The challenges presented by the young person’s home environment I acknowledge are beyond his own control.

190. It useful to recall Ms Kocak’s observation, consistent with the other expert evidence, that “the risk of future sexual offending would likely increase in contexts involving intoxication, acute emotional distress, lack of supervision or renewed association with delinquent peers. Conversely, risk is likely to decrease under conditions of structured supervision, substance treatment, trauma-informed therapy and consistent mentoring”.

191. The factors critical to the young person’s rehabilitation warrant the imposition of a combination sentence to ensure this support is put in place and to monitor the young person’s ongoing compliance. A combination sentence would permit a good behaviour order to be imposed which is tailored to promote the young person’s rehabilitation and designed to cater to his individual needs.

192. Quite apart from my view as to the risk that a return to his adolescent environment would present to his rehabilitative progress, the period the young person has spent in pre-sentence custody to date, even allowing for a reduction in his moral culpability, does not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offending nor would it give effect to the other important purposes of sentencing.

193. The experts acknowledged the real progress made by the young person whilst he has been on remand, there being no evidence that he has suffered “psychological decompensation”. Ms Kocak offered, “[F]or some adolescents with histories of chaotic home environments and poor boundaries, [the custodial environment] structure can temporarily reduce risk and stabilise behaviour.”

194. On the other hand, Ms Kocak’s caution that the long-term implications of incarceration “require careful consideration” which was aligned with views expressed by Ms Edwige and echoed Dr Calabria’s concerns about the ineffectiveness of punishment alone to facilitate behaviour change. The effect on the young person of separation from his kin, especially his mother with whom he has strong attachment, cannot be considered without acknowledging the body of research cited by Ms Edwige and Ms Kocak which records the disproportionate psychological effect of separation from family and community on First Nations youth and the risks associated with institutionalisation. A proper emphasis on individualised justice for this young person, to which I must give effect, cannot ignore the importance to him of his cultural identity when considering in particular his rehabilitation needs.

195. Ms Kocak further observed: While stabilisation and foundational therapeutic work can be effectively delivered in custody, longer-term rehabilitation (particularly substance relapse prevention, systemic family work, and pro-social reintegration) and trauma grounded interventions, is often more effectively consolidated in structured community supervision with coordinated services.

196. In short, the risk of institutionalisation is the prospect of the young person becoming entirely reliant on the external structure created by the custodial environment, at the same time as being denied opportunity for realistic family-based interventions which cater to the environment in which he will eventually return, as well as restricted access to ‘real-world’ practice of relapse prevention skills. The community has an interest in an outcome which avoids the realisation of that risk because the young person will have to be released at some point and setting him up for successful reintegration into the community is critical for his own rehabilitation and to enhance long-term community safety.

197. The risk of institutionalisation together with the long-term effectiveness of the custodial environment to promote rehabilitation and the capacity for his home environment to support it, are all relevant considerations for the purposes of determining the shortest appropriate term of imprisonment. Equally the critical need for him to engage in offence-specific therapy which is certain to occur in the custodial environment. Of course, the term must also be determined by reference to the other purposes of sentencing which are necessary to reflect.

198. Relevantly, the Court in MT stated, after observing at [69] that a combination sentence consisting of a suspended sentence and a good behaviour order reflects “the ‘carrot and stick’ approach to behavioural reform”, at [87]-[89]: In the case of a young offender, the legislature has promoted a suspended sentence order with a good behaviour order and precluded a sentence of full-time imprisonment with a nonparole period presumably because, in all cases, the former is deemed to be more appropriate. For both adult offenders and young offenders, the sentencing court must determine the unsuspended portion of the suspended sentence order by reference to relevant sentencing purposes, the objective seriousness of the offence and the offender’s subjective circumstances. However, as between adult offenders and young offenders, it is very likely that relevant sentencing purposes will be weighted differently. In the case of young offenders, there will be a greater emphasis on rehabilitation of the individual and less emphasis on community-focussed sentencing purposes such as general deterrence and denunciation. Further, in paying “particular regard” to “individualised justice”, it is likely that a court that is sentencing a young offender will attach greater weight to the offender’s subjective circumstances, particularly the circumstances that must be considered under s 133D. These considerations illuminate why, in relation to young offenders, the legislature has excluded the parole provisions while promoting combination sentences that involve some full-time imprisonment. A relevant combination sentence gives the sentencing court significantly greater flexibility and capacity to deliver individualised justice, prioritising the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation. It enables the sentencing court to oversee the young person after they are sentenced and, if necessary, to re-sentence the young person, again focusing on individualised justice and prioritising the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation.

199. The challenge in this sentencing task is balancing the need to impose a sentence which sufficiently reflects the gravity of the conduct and the irreparable harm it caused, as well as the young person’s moral culpability as a 15-year-old and the need to protect the community which is undeniably linked to his rehabilitation. The promotion of his rehabilitation is made complex because of the extent of the challenges presented by his Neurodevelopmental Disorder and the other factors external to the young person.

200. The sentence I impose, applying the requirement that it be for the shortest appropriate term, will involve a substantial term of imprisonment. This is necessary to mark the seriousness of the young person’s conduct. The imposition of a combination sentence will see the young person released at a time which I consider will promote his rehabilitation and in turn, enhance community safety. The young person’s date of release and the conditions which will apply to him will take account of his need for long-term support as well as the need for him to be carefully monitored to guard community safety.

201. There are some remaining matters I consider necessary to observe.

202. The term of imprisonment I will impose of the young person will see him remain at Bimberi until after he is 18 years old. There is provision for him to remain detained there up until he is 21 years old: s 133H of the Sentencing Act. Whilst I have no power to direct his detention at a particular place after he turns 18, I note that transfer to a correction centre could only occur if the director-general was satisfied that it is in the young person’s best interest, or the interests of other young detainees, which requires consideration of a range of factors: s 111(2) and (3) Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT). In the young person’s case, the information contained in the expert reports (to which the director-general would have full access) as to his particular needs, as well as his progress in Bimberi in the context of the availability of suitable programs for him at the Alexander Machonochie Centre, could only feature as compelling considerations.

203. The effectiveness of the supervision component of the combination sentence I will impose will necessarily be influenced by the extent to which the young person’s Neurodevelopmental Disorder is accommodated. The specific and highly detailed recommendations contained in Dr Calabria’s report are instructive and provide invaluable guidance.

204. Likewise, supervision which puts a premium on the strength to be found for the young person in cultural connectivity, expression and pride will be the most effective. This could be achieved by ensuring that the young person is substantially supported by specialist First Nations services which are embedded in, and draw from, our community. The case plans developed for the young person both as part of the TCO assessment process and the PSR will be relevant whether he is 18 or 20 years old. Those plans, as well as the expert reports to which I have referred, should be made readily available to the directorate and staff who will oversee the young person’s supervision to ensure his promise for rehabilitation can be realised. I note the prohibition on an education and training condition included in a good behaviour order being in place for more than three years: s 133S of the Sentencing Act.

205. Finally, I am compelled to again acknowledge that the victims in this matter each suffered irreparable harm. Their statements eloquently demonstrated the terror they undoubtedly experienced. As I have attempted to capture in crafting these reasons, whilst the sentence must recognise the harm done to them, no sentence I impose will restore them to a place where their lives are not cast in the shadow of their experience. I commend their courage and hope for their healing.

206. For those reasons, I make the following orders: Series 1 (1) On the sexual assault in the third-degree count (CH1623/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to two years and three months of imprisonment (reduced from 36 months) to start on 25 May 2025 and end on 24 August 2027. (2) On the act of indecency without consent count (CH455/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to one year, one month and 15 days of imprisonment (reduced from 18 months of imprisonment) to start on 10 December 2026 and end on 24 January 2028. (3) On the act endangering health, namely intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person count (CH557/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to nine months of imprisonment (reduced from 12 months of imprisonment) to start on 25 July 2027 and end on 24 April 2028. Series 2 (4) On the act endangering life, namely intentionally choke, suffocate or strangle another person to render them insensible or unconscious (CH950/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment (reduced from four years of imprisonment) to start on 25 April 2027 and end on 24 April 2030. (5) On the act of indecency in the second degree (CH1624/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to one year, 10 months and 14 days of imprisonment (reduced from 30 months of imprisonment) to start on 11 April 2029 and end on 24 February 2031. (6) On the act of indecency without consent (CH947/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to one year and three months of imprisonment (reduced from 20 months of imprisonment) to start on 25 May 2030 and end on 24 August 2031. (7) On the theft count (CH1015/2025) the young person is convicted and sentenced to seven months and 14 days of imprisonment (reduced from 10 months imprisonment) to start on 11 April 2031 and end on 24 November 2031. (8) The total term imposed is 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment. (9) The sentence is to be suspended on 24 May 2028 on condition that the young person enter an undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations until 24 November 2031. (10) In addition, until 24 November 2031 the young person is to accept the supervision of the director-general and comply with all reasonable directions including in relation to: In addition, until 25 November 2031 the young person is to accept the supervision of the director-general and comply with all reasonable directions including in relation to: (a) Urinalysis. (b) Accommodation and disability support. (c) Alcohol use and illicit substance consumption including rehabilitation programs (residential or otherwise) and relapse prevention programs. (d) Medical assessments, including psychological, psychiatric, physical, cognitive or neurological assessments. (e) Engagement with medical treatment including psychological, psychiatric, physical, cognitive or neurological treatment, programs, counselling therapy (including offence-specific, trauma focused, occupational and neurodevelopmental therapy). (11) Further until 25 May 2031, the young person is to accept the supervision of the director-general and comply with all reasonable directions in relation to education and training including undertaking educational, vocational, employment or training opportunities including with respect to cultural knowledge. I certify that the preceding two hundred and six [206] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Sentence of Her Honour Justice Taylor.

Associate: A MacDonald Date: 27 October 2026 Annexure A

In TDJ and TA v Carter [2001] ACTSC 38, two young people of 14 years old (TDJ) and 15 years old (TA) were sentenced for one count each of sexual intercourse without consent which was proven at a hearing in the ACT Children’s Court. The victim was 15 years old, intoxicated and both young people knew that she was unable to consent. The sentence imposed at first instance for both young people was nine months imprisonment to be served full time followed by 12 months’ probation. On appeal, both appellants argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all circumstances. The appeal was dismissed. In R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24, the young person was 17 years old at the time of the offending. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed on a count of sexual assault in the first degree, three years imprisonment each for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and 12 months’ imprisonment for a count of theft. The young person was sentenced to a total of seven years’ imprisonment with the sentence to be partially suspended after three years on a good behaviour order with conditions. The victim was unknown to the young person, and the offending was characterised as opportunistic. The young person had no criminal history and was disinhibited by alcohol at the time of the offending. He was characterised as “entirely culpable” for the offending. The offences were considered “very serious” resulting in severe and long-lasting physical and emotional consequences. In OH v Driessen (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 354, the offender was 13 years old, and the victim was his younger stepsister who was 7 years old at the time of the offending. This was a resentence after the young person appealed the initial sentence imposed upon him in the ACT Children’s Court: OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148. The young person was resentenced for one count of committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 10 years, one count of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years, and one count of attempting to engage in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years. The offences were characterised as “very serious” though “not the most serious of such offences” and there was no violence. The “real issue” on the re-sentence was whether a conviction should be recorded. A conviction was imposed on each count, and the young person was required to comply with a good behaviour order for 12 months on all three counts and accept supervision for 12 months with respect to one of the counts. In R v CN [2020] ACTSC 282, the young person was 16 years old at the time, and the victim was 15 years old. The young person, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to one count of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years. There was no physical violence or coercion, and the offence was considered to be at the “low end”. The young person had no criminal history, had limited social or familial problems, and was engaged in education and part-time work. However, it was noted that the young person’s childhood involved a history of domestic and family violence, neglect, child protection and parental substance misuse. The young person was sentenced to a good behaviour order with conditions for 24 months. In R v Haven (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 25, the young person was 17 years old, and the victim was younger than him by more than a year. The young person pleaded guilty and was sentenced on one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The sentence imposed was two years and seven months’ imprisonment (reduced from three years) wholly suspended upon entering a three year’ good behaviour order with conditions. The victim was known to the young person as they had been previously in a relationship though at the time of the offending the victim was in a relationship with another person. It was observed that the offender took advantage of the victim by manipulating her to meet with him and then taking her to a place where he had the opportunity to assault. The matter was subject to a prosecution appeal in R v Haven (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 6 which was dismissed. In DPP v KQE (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 318, the young person was 17 years old at the time of the first offence and an adult for the second offence. The first offence was of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age, the victim was 7 years old, and the young person was 17 years old. The second offence was one count of sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years of age, the victim was 12 years old, and the offender was 19 years old. Both offences were ‘rolled up’. The young person had experienced childhood disadvantage which enlivened the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy) and the principles in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 (Verdins). The sentence imposed was 21 months and 14 days imprisonment (reduced from 24 months) for each offence, with a total sentence of three years, six months and 27 days imprisonment. A short non-parole period was imposed on the adult offence, the effect of which was service of just under two years of full-time imprisonment. In DPP v Best (pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 334, the young person was 15 years old, and the victim was 14 years old. The young person pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The young person had engaged in the offending for his own sexual gratification with little regard to the victim’s wishes and welfare. There were no additional acts of violence, threats of violence or additional acts of humiliation or degradation. The young person had a childhood and adolescence marked by profound disadvantage which enlivened the Bugmy and Verdins principles. This included neglect and instability in his family home, extensive engagement with child protection, intellectual disabilities and mental health conditions. The young person was convicted, sentenced to one year, two months and 12 days imprisonment (reduced from 18 months) which was immediately suspended upon entering a good behaviour order with conditions. In Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 140, the young person was 17 years old at the time of the offending and the victim was 14 years old. There was a family violence context and the offending involved additional acts of violence, degradation and in one instance involved the use of a weapon. The young person pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person under 16, one aggravated act of indecency, one aggravated threat to kill, and one count of possess offensive weapon with intent. The young person had adverse childhood experiences including substance use from 10 years old, child protection involvement and mental health conditions and disabilities. The Bugmy and Verdins principles were applied. On three of the five counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person under 16 the young person was convicted and sentenced on each count to 38 months imprisonment reduced from 48 months. On the fourth and fifth counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person under 16, the young person was convicted and sentenced on each count to 28 months reduced from 36 months. On the count of aggravated act of indecency, the young person was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 24 months, reduced from 30 months. On the count of aggravated threat to kill (which accounted for the one count of possess offensive weapon with intent), the young person was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, reduced from 36 months. The total sentence of six years and nine months was imposed, suspended after three years upon entering a good behaviour order with conditions for the duration of the sentence. In Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v O'Brien (a pseudonym) (No 7) [2025] ACTSC 172, the young person was between 14 years old and 16 years old at the time of the offending of which he was found guilty by a jury. The offending occurred against four separate victims, all relatively close in age to the young person. The offending was not accompanied by any additional acts of violence. Some of the offending was assessed as “serious examples of serious criminal offences”. For one count of act of indecency without consent, this being the less serious count, a conviction with no further penalty was imposed. For the second count of act of indecency without consent, the young person was convicted, and a six-month term of imprisonment was imposed. For the first count of sexual intercourse without consent a term of 12 months imprisonment was imposed, for the second count a term of 15 months imprisonment was imposed, and for the third count a term of 18 months imprisonment was imposed. Overall, the total sentence of imprisonment was two years of imprisonment which was suspended after the young person had served 16 months and upon entering a 21 month good behaviour order with conditions. The sentence was subject to an appeal by the prosecution and separately an appeal by the young person: O’Brien (a pseudonym) v DPP [2026] ACTCA 2. The appeal was dismissed. In Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Hyde (A Pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 362, the young person was 15 years old, and the victim who was 12 years old. Three counts of an act of indecency with a person under 16 years were determined to involve threats, physical restraint, violence and coercion. There was a 20 year delay in bringing the matter before the courts. On the first act of indecency, the young person was convicted and sentenced to a two year good behaviour order, the second count the young person was convicted and sentenced to six months of imprisonment (reduced from eight months), and the third count the young person was convicted and sentenced to six months and 13 days of imprisonment (reduced from eight-months). There were additional offences the detail of which was redacted from the published judgement. A total sentence of two years of imprisonment was imposed and suspended after 16 months upon entering a good behaviour order with conditions for 18 months. This outcome was the subject of a prosecution appeal which has yet to be determined. In DPP v Lloyd (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 110, the young person was 17 years old, and the victim was six or seven at the time of the offending. The young person entered a plea of guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. Kelly AJ described the offending as “truly shocking”. The young person was observed to have a substantial child protection history regarding his sexually harmful behaviour, to have significantly impaired intellectual functions, to have used drugs and alcohol from a young age. He was estranged from his family. The young person was sentenced to a fixed term of one year, three months and 20 days imprisonment (reduced from 20 months). The young person was further sentenced to a two-year therapeutic correction order which began on the day of the sentence. This is the only outcome which has resulted in the imposition of a therapeutic correction order. In DPP v Underwood (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 210, the offender was 17 years old when he commenced offending against his two younger sisters aged 10 years old and 13 years old. Some of the offences captured conduct which occurred when the offender was a young person and when he became an adult. The effect of which was the offender was dealt with for all of the offences as a ‘young offender’ except one of the incest offences which was committed when he was 23 years of age. The young person entered pleas of guilty for two counts of act of indecency on a person under 10, one ‘rolled up’ count of act of indecency on a person under 10, one count of act of indecency on a person under 16 years old and one count of incest on a person under 16. The offending was planned and persisted despite the protests and rejections of the victims. The offending was observed as being influenced by the young person having repeated and early exposure to incest pornography at a cognitively and sexually immature age which distorted his understanding of sexual relationships. For the first count of act of indecency on a person under 10, the young person was convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months. For the count of act of indecency on a person under 10 the young person was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 13 months and 15 days, reduced from 18 months. For the third count, this being the ‘rolled up’ count, of act of indecency on a person under 10, the young person was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment reduced from four years. For the count of act of indecency on a person under 16 years old the young person was convicted and sentenced to six months and 23 days, this was reduced from nine months. For the count of incest on a person under 16 the young person was convicted and sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, reduced from six years. The overall sentence of imprisonment was 8 years of imprisonment, suspended after service of four years and six months upon entering a good behaviour order for the duration of the sentence. In Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Hancock (A Pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 389, the young person was 16 years old at the time of the offending and the victim was 18 years old. The young person pleaded guilty to one ‘rolled up’ count of sexual intercourse without consent. The offending was described as serious and involved significant force. The sentence imposed was one year and six months imprisonment (reduced from two years) which was immediately suspended upon entering a good behaviour order with conditions for the duration of the term of imprisonment.