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

1. On 24 February 2026, Fasil Jember (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences in full satisfaction of the indictment: (a) one count of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 19(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CAN 3713/2025); and (b) one count of aggravated common assault, contrary to s 26(2) of the Crimes Act (CAN 3714/2025).

2. The maximum penalty for the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated common assault is three years’ imprisonment.

3. The victim of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm was Mr Trewartha, who lived next door to the offender and his partner. The victim of the aggravated common assault was the offender’s then-partner, now ex-partner, who will be referred to as the offender’s partner.

Facts

Background

4. At the time of the offending, the offender was or had been in an intimate relationship with the offender’s partner who resided at a unit in Chapman with the offender.

5. Mr Trewartha lived next door to that unit with his sister in his sister’s unit. The units share a fence. Mr Trewartha had previously seen the offender at the offender’s partner’s unit and they had spoken. However, the conversations were often fleeting and done through the adjoining fence of the units.

6. Mr Trewartha had more interactions with the offender’s partner who, on occasion, would ask him for cigarettes. Mr Trewartha would give her cigarettes and they would engage in small talk. On one occasion, the offender’s partner told Mr Trewartha that the offender thought they were engaging in a romantic relationship, which they were not.

7. About two weeks prior to the offending, Mr Trewartha and the offender had a conversation out the front of the unit complex where Mr Trewartha briefly told the offender not to bring him into any of their relationship “drama” because he had enough going on. The facts surrounding the offending

8. At around 8:40pm on Sunday 30 March 2025, Mr Trewartha had been dropped off to his sister’s unit in Chapman. On arrival, he realised that she was not home. He had received a message from the offender’s partner either before arriving or on arrival at the address asking him for cigarettes, to which he said that she could have some of his.

9. The offender’s partner attended Ms Trewartha's unit where Mr Trewartha was, to get the cigarettes. The offender’s partner and Mr Trewartha engaged in small talk for around 10-20 minutes.

10. The offender was at a nearby address. He had access to the doorbell camera footage from outside his partner’s unit on his phone. He observed footage of her leaving the unit to go next door to Mr Trewartha's unit. On viewing the footage, the offender and an unknown man drove to the location in a white hatchback vehicle. The offender alighted quickly from the vehicle carrying a large knife.

11. The offender’s partner saw the offender at the door and began to scream. She observed him holding onto the frame of the sliding door and pulling at it, which gave her the impression he was trying to pull it off its hinges.

12. Mr Trewartha rushed out the door and confronted the offender in the carport of the unit. At this time, he saw the offender produce the large knife. Some words were exchanged between the offender and Mr Trewartha before the offender stabbed him in the chest.

13. Mr Trewartha then raised his right leg towards the offender, in an attempt to defend himself and the offender grabbed hold of it and slashed the back of his ankle with the knife causing heavy bleeding. Mr Trewartha began to retreat further into the driveway while the offender advanced on him swinging the knife at him.

14. During the incident, a witness heard the offender saying words to the effect of “that’s my girl” and “I had to stand up for my girl” and a female voice saying “no”.

15. The offender then turned and ran towards the offender’s partner still holding the knife. He kneed her in the right leg and kicked his left leg towards her. The offender’s partner was attempting to go back inside the unit with her phone in her hand. The offender said to her “you are not calling an ambulance”, took her phone from her and removed the doorbell camera from the unit. He then punched her multiple times in the stomach and face which caused her mouth to bleed.

16. The offender then ran back towards Mr Trewartha who was in the same position, close to the end of the driveway. The offender again wielded the knife and swung his arm at him. The offender momentarily walked away before turning back towards Mr Trewartha, who attempted to fend him off by pushing him away with his left arm while his right hand was clutching his chest.

17. At some stage during the incident, Mr Trewartha said to the offender “if you fucking stab me one more time, you’re gonna kill me” to which the offender replied, “die bitch”.

18. The unknown man was present at the time of the incident, walking up and down the driveway somewhat following the offender. Towards the end of the incident, the unknown male got in the driver's seat of the white hatchback vehicle and reversed the car out of the driveway and up the street.

19. The offender ran up the driveway in the same direction of the car, and got in it before it drove away.

20. CCTV footage of the incident tendered to the Court clearly shows that Mr Trewartha had suffered significant blood loss as a result of the attack upon him.

Emergency service attendance

21. During the incident or in the immediate aftermath, police had received “000” calls from the victim’s neighbours requesting police and ambulance attendance.

22. On Mr Jember’s departure from the location, Mr Trewartha also called the ambulance, which arrived shortly after and transported him to hospital where he was treated.

Injuries to Mr Trewartha

23. Mr Trewartha was admitted to hospital on 30 March 2025 and discharged on 4 April 2025. An expert medical report tendered to the Court explained the extent of his injuries: (a) Incision wounds “to his chest and ankle which have features of deep penetration as a result of sharp force trauma”; (b) The chest wound involved: (i) “Penetrating trauma via the right anterolateral sixth intercostal space with injury to the liver with a likely grade 1/2 AAST laceration”; and (ii) “Pneumothorax and moderate haemothorax (blood in chest cavity) requiring insertion of a chest drain to prevent medical deterioration”. (c) The ankle incision involved: (i) “Deep laceration overlying the Achilles tendon”; (ii) “Complete Achilles tendon rupture”; (iii) “70% laceration through Flexor hallucis longus and Peroneus brevis”; (iv) “Nick of tibial nerve”; and (v) “Sural nerve completely lacerated".

24. The expert medical report offered the following opinion: Luke TREWARTHA’s injuries were serious and life threatening. The stab wound penetrated both his chest and abdominal cavities, putting his life at risk from bleeding and entry of air into the chest cavity. Without treatment, blood may have continued to build up inside his chest and abdominal cavities preventing vital organs from functioning normally. Untreated bleeding could also have led to life-threatening blood volume loss. Medical intervention was done to prevent Luke TREWARTHA from deteriorating. An intercostal catheter (tube into his chest) was inserted to drain blood to prevent his lungs from being compressed by a larger haemothorax (blood collection). He was also treated with Transexamic acid to increase his capacity for blood clotting to help control bleeding. The penetrating stab wound allowed air to enter his chest cavity which was reported have caused partial collapse of his lung. An intercostal catheter can prevent air building up inside the chest cavity. Without treatment, air may have continued to enter his chest cavity through the wound leading to a life-threatening lung collapse. Some air also entered his abdominal cavity. He was also at risk of infection entering his wounds leading to life-threatening sepsis. He was administered antibiotics to help control infection.

25. As to how deep the penetrating wounds to both abdomen and calf were, the expert report noted: Both penetrating wounds were deep and damaged important underlying structures. The precise depth in centimetres is not available from the records. The penetrating wound in the lower chest passed through the sixth intercostal space and penetrated both the abdominal and thoracic cavities. Underlying organs were damaged including the liver. The penetrating wound to the back of the right ankle severed the Achilles tendon, as well as damaging underlying muscles and nerves.

26. In relation to the ankle wound, Mr Trewartha may have chronic problems, including chronic pain and limits to his mobility. He may also suffer chronic pain associated with his chest wound.

27. Mr Trewartha will have permanent scarring to the right lower chest and back of his right ankle.

28. Mr Trewartha may have long-lasting psychological repercussions secondary to a life-threatening traumatic event. He may also have psychological repercussions from the poor healing of his ankle.

29. Photographs of the injuries tendered to the Court show the horrific extent of the wounds sustained. Injuries to the offender’s partner

30. As noted above, the offender kneed his partner in the right leg and kicked his left leg towards her. He then punched her multiple times in the stomach and face causing her mouth to bleed. A photograph was tendered on sentence showing blood on the bottom lip of the offender’s partner as a result of the assault.

31. The offender gave evidence on his sentence (which will be dealt with in detail below). He stated that he has since ascertained that the offender’s partner was pregnant at the time of these events.

Admissions

32. During April 2025, the offender made various phone calls from the Alexander Maconochie Centre during which he made statements and admissions as follows: (a) “The cunt that I stabbed, he made a statement”; (b) “She [the offender’s partner] is probably hanging around with the cunt I fucking stabbed”; (c) “If I get out of here and she doesn’t want to fix it, I will fucking end both of them”; (d) “I do not regret doing that to him but I really don’t. I honestly don’t take that back”; and (e) In a phone call to the offender’s partner, “you went next door, I saw you, what did you expect me to do Ash”.

Victim impact

33. No victim impact statements were provided to the Court. However, it can readily be inferred that Mr Trewartha’s ordeal must have been terrifying. Indeed Mr Trewartha told the offender during the incident “you fucking stab me one more time, you’re gonna kill me” to which the offender replied “die bitch”.

34. Similarly, the offender’s partner not only suffered a terrifying assault herself, but witnessed the horrific attack on Mr Trewartha.

Objective seriousness

Intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm

35. In R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281, Murrell CJ, in dealing with an offence of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm, noted at [28] that “[t]he objective seriousness of the offence is to be assessed by reference to the culpability of the offender and the degree of grievous bodily harm that was occasioned.” Her Honour referred to the culpability of the offender in that case as being informed by the following matters (at [29]): (a) the motive for the attack, in particular whether it was retribution; (b) the degree of planning that went into the attack; (c) the fact that the complainant was defenceless and vulnerable when attacked; (d) the fact that a weapon was used; (e) the nature and extent of the attack carried out; and (f) whether the assault was committed in company.

36. In the present case, bearing those matters in mind, the present offending is a very serious example of offending of this type. (a) The motivation for the attack seems to have been extreme and irrational jealousy. The offender was obsessively monitoring comings and goings from the offender’s partner’s unit on his phone when he was elsewhere. In what appears to have been a rage, he returned to the unit armed with a knife to exact retribution upon his imagined rival. Underlying all this was a worrying sense of entitlement, and possessiveness, in relation to his partner. As related above, during the attack the offender was heard to say “I had to stand up for my girl”, no doubt being a reference to the offender’s partner. Further, in a phone call between the offender and the offender’s partner two months later when the offender was in prison, the offender stated “you went next door, I saw you, what did you expect me to do Ash”. The prosecutor very reasonably made the submission that the offender’s conduct and words bespeak the fact that he viewed his partner as his property, and his subsequent words are redolent of him apportioning blame on the offender’s partner for his own conduct. (b) Although perhaps not significantly premeditated, the offender hurried from another location to confront the victim, arming himself with a knife in the process. He had plenty of time to consider his actions. When he arrived he immediately confronted both victims whilst brandishing a knife. (c) Mr Trewartha was essentially defenceless as he could not have anticipated the offender’s actions. The offender’s partner was similarly vulnerable. (d) The weapon used was a large knife which was capable of inflicting, and did inflict, serious injuries. (e) The attack was sustained and ferocious. As can be seen from the CCTV footage, the offender continuously advanced on the retreating Mr Trewartha. He momentarily ceased his attack on Mr Trewartha only to attack his partner, but then turned again to renew his attack on Mr Trewartha. It must have been clear the offender had seriously injured Mr Trewartha by that stage by the amount of blood that had been lost and Mr Trewartha’s utterance, “you’re gonna kill me”, to which the offender replied “die bitch”. (f) The attack was not carried out in company, although I note that the offender was driven to and from the scene by another man who was present on the periphery of the scene. I am not suggesting that the other man contributed to the offences, but his presence allowed the offender to quickly arrive at, and quickly leave from, the scene.

37. Taking all of the above matters into account, I find that this was a very serious example of an offence of this type.

Aggravated assault

38. The offence against the offender’s partner occurred within the context of an intimate relationship. Such a context is only all too well known to the court. Matters to which the court is to have particular regard in sentencing for an offence such as this are set out in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Those matters include the matters mentioned in the preamble to the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT). As Taylor J pointed out in DPP v Howe [2024] ACTSC 178 at [39]: The preamble to the Family Violence Act encapsulates the approach the community expects should be taken to family violence, including the need to condemn family violence, the need to promote offender accountability, the exploitation of power imbalances that these offences can involve and recognition that family violence is predominantly committed by men against women and children.

39. In the present case, the offending took place immediately outside and at the door of the offender’s partner’s unit, a place she was entitled to feel secure. The offender ran at his partner, she just having witnessed a violent assault with a knife against her neighbour. The offender then assaulted her in various ways with the knee, kick, and punches to the stomach and face. It now appears, unbeknownst to the offender at the time, that offender’s partner was pregnant during this assault. The offender’s partner was retreating from him during the assault but he persisted. She suffered bleeding from the mouth.

40. I should note in this context, that the charge of aggravated assault is a rolled up charge which incorporates several separate incidents of conduct. As the prosecutor has rightly submitted, although the rolled up count is one charge and the sentence may not exceed the maximum penalty for the offence charged, nevertheless the criminality encompassed within the count is greater than it would be if the count were constituted by only one offence.

41. I conclude that this offence is a serious example of offending of this type. The overwhelming sense of entitlement held by the offender towards his partner is a particularly worrying aspect of the offending.

Subjective circumstances

42. The offender is now 34 years of age. The subjective circumstances of the offender are complex, and indeed rather tragic. The following description is contained in a pre-sentence report dated 13 July 2026: Born in Ethiopia, Mr Jember lived with his mother until the age of six, then with an aunt and uncle until the age of 12. At this time, he and his older brother were sent to Australia to live with their father, with whom they had no previous contact. Mr Jember described his father as very strict, and at the age of 14 he left his father’s house and lived in youth refuges, couch surfing with friends and in an informal foster care arrangement. Mr Jember advised he does not currently have contact with his father, who is unaware of his criminal record. He has not had contact with his mother since the age of six, and is unsure where she lives. Mr Jember has ongoing contact with his older brother, however, it is noted his brother has been banned from visiting AMC due to introducing contraband. Mr Jember advised he has a four year old daughter from a brief relationship, although he has not met his child. Mr Jember is currently single. Mr Jember advised he is a Permanent Resident and had been contacted by the Department of Home Affairs regarding cancellation of his visa. He returned required documents and has had no further contact, and is unsure of his current visa status.

43. The offender’s subjective circumstances were considered by Christensen AJ in DPP v Jember [2024] ACTSC 311, where her Honour noted at [28] “his time in Ethiopia was a period involving, on the information provided to the Court, exposure to war, domestic violence and limited formal education opportunities.”

44. The pre-sentence report noted some substance abuse issues, particularly in regard to methamphetamine, the report commenting: Prior to being remanded in custody, Mr Jember reported methamphetamine use around once per fortnight, and cannabis use weekly or fortnightly, despite being subject to a DATO, with his use escalating prior to the current offences.

45. In his evidence given on sentence, the offender was more inclined to emphasise his methamphetamine use around the time of his offending and indeed during his early period in custody, seeking to suggest that it was an important ingredient in his offending, and his subsequent attitude to the offending as disclosed in the post-remand recorded phone calls.

46. The offender appears to be in good physical health. The pre-sentence report advises that there is no evidence of a major mental illness, although he had contact with the Alcohol and Drug Service as a requirement of a drug and alcohol treatment order.

Criminal history

47. The offender has an unenviable criminal history. Notably, in 2011, there were offences of possessing a knife and failing to appear, for which good behaviour orders were imposed. More concerning was that in 2012 there were two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offender conceded that the victim of those matters was his then partner. He received a six-month sentence that was initially suspended, but later he was required to serve four months of periodic detention because he breached the good behaviour orders. Because of breaches of the periodic detention order, ultimately he served a short period of full-time imprisonment. It is a matter of concern that the present offences also involve intimate partner violence.

48. In 2024, the offender was sentenced by Christensen AJ (see DPP v Jember [2024] ACTSC 311) for two series of offences, including aiding and abetting burglary and trafficking in methylamphetamine. In those proceedings the offender accepted that terms of imprisonment were inevitable, but sought that they be suspended for the purpose of engaging in a drug and alcohol treatment order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

49. Unfortunately, although the Court made a treatment order, the offender breached that order. He was therefore brought back before Christensen AJ in May 2025 (DPP v Jember (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 213) and on 22 May 2025 the Court cancelled the order and imposed the sentences of imprisonment which had been the custodial part of the order. He was therefore sentenced to a total sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment, to commence on 22 July 2024 and end on 21 November 2027. A non-parole period was imposed to commence on 22 July 2024 and end on 31 July 2026.

50. There are two particular consequences of this. First, when he committed the present offences he was on conditional liberty by way of the drug and alcohol treatment order. As noted above, the offender does have a record of failing to comply with sentencing orders. The fact he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending was a seriously aggravating factor: see Auld v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 21 at [9].

51. Secondly, as he is now serving an existing sentence of imprisonment, if, which is inevitable, a further term of imprisonment is imposed, the court is required to reset the non-parole period: see Crimes (Sentencing) Act ss 65 and 66.

Plea of guilty

52. The offender had offered to plead guilty to the principal offence of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm in the Magistrates Court. However the prosecution (somewhat ambitiously) laid a charge of attempted murder in relation to the incident. The matters were committed to this Court where, after a criminal case conference and following negotiations, the prosecution agreed to accept pleas to the matters now before the Court in full discharge of the indictment, in other words dropping the charge of attempted murder. The offender entered pleas of guilty in this Court on 24 February 2026, after the criminal case conference had been held on 8 December 2025.

53. Of course, it is very much in the interests of the parties, the victims, the court and the community that offenders enter early guilty pleas. That is precisely why a significant discount is offered for an early plea. The prosecutor very fairly and properly accepted that in the circumstances this was an early plea and the offender would normally be entitled to a discount of up to 25%. However, the prosecutor submitted that the case fell within s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. That provides that the court must not make any significant reduction for the fact that the offender pleaded guilty if, based on established facts, the court considers that the prosecution’s case for the offence was overwhelmingly strong.

54. The prosecutor referred to R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122, where it was said at [30]-[31]: Section 35(4), by commencing with the word ‘However’, is expressly cast as a mandatory exception to the preceding two subsections, but in particular subs (3), which permits a reduction by reason of a guilty plea alone, after taking into account the mandatory considerations in subjection (2) [sic] and implicitly any other considerations, here Mr Newby’s subjective circumstances. Plainly enough, s 35(4) is intended to ensure that when the prosecution case satisfies the sentencing judge that the prosecution’s case for the offence, based on ‘established facts’, meets the description of being ‘overwhelmingly strong’, no significant reduction in sentence is permitted by reason of the guilty plea. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘overwhelming’ as being so great as to render opposition useless. That is the general sense in which that adverb is used in s 35(4). It does not mean that nothing other than a guilty verdict was possible. In context it suggests that an acquittal is realistically unlikely. It calls for a practical assessment of the reality of the situation. But it cannot mean so high a hurdle that it can never be met.

55. Newby was a very particular case. There is an old saying that “hard cases don’t make the law”. In contrast, in R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103, the Court observed at [73]: We agree that the prosecution case was very strong, although largely circumstantial. However, we do not consider that it fell into the very small class of cases that satisfy the ‘overwhelmingly strong’ requirement in s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act.

56. I have come somewhat reluctantly to the conclusion that the present matter does fall within the very small class of cases that satisfy the overwhelmingly strong requirement. I say reluctantly because the entering of early pleas even in cases which are overwhelmingly strong is very much to be encouraged. If hardly any discount is offered, offenders may lack the incentive to offer early pleas. In that way s 35(4) may in fact work against the overall interests of justice. Nevertheless, it is the law and as the prosecutor pointed out, the offending here was visually recorded, there was no issue with the identity of the offender, and the offender’s admissions during recorded telephone conversations left no doubt as to his intention when committing the offences.

57. In any event, this begs the question, “what constitutes a significant reduction?”, and correspondingly “what might be a reduction that will not fall foul of that description?”. In my view, what is significant has to be judged against the discount that would otherwise be available, which in this case as conceded by the prosecution is 25%. In that context, a reduction of 10% for the plea of guilty is not a significant discount and that is the reduction I intend to impose in this case.

Remorse

58. Clearly enough, as shown by the recorded telephone conversations referred to above, in the immediate aftermath of the offences the offender expressed the opposite of remorse.

59. The offender did express some remorse to the author of the pre-sentence report, stating that his behaviour was unacceptable and out of character. The presentence report noted “Mr Jember reflected on his history of unstable accommodation, and stated he felt the victim was threatening his relationship, which in turn would affect his living situation.”

60. In a letter which he wrote to the Court and which was tendered on sentence, the offender set out his unfortunate family history, which led to his “living in a negative lifestyle with no experience in work or anything positive”. He stated that he was “emotionally distraught” when he split up with his partner, and added “I ended up going off the rails and getting into ice, this was a new low for me”.

61. Furthermore, the offender gave evidence on sentence in which he expressed some remorse (see Transcript, 22 July 2026 at 9.33-45): First of all, I actually feel very, like, after I came to, like, after I was affected by drugs and whatnot, when I came back to my normal self, I actually feel horrible about it. Like, you know, I almost killed somebody. Like, the four days I was even on the run, I've never felt any lower, like, any human can feel low. Like, I didn't know what I've done at that moment. So like, once I looked at the videotape, like, I feel fucking horrible about it. What can I say, like, I don't feel nothing good about it. … I honestly, I hope, I wish I could change places with [Mr Trewartha], and I've accepted, they asked me if I would do a restorative justice, and I agreed, and I highly would love to do that.

62. He also stated (at 11.11-19): Look, I could say like a lot of things and no one's going to believe that. I just want to be held accountable for my actions and everything else. I'd love to, like, a long - instead of a long prison sentence, I’d love a long parole period at least my reoffending and my drug addiction can be held accountable. And that's the main thing that I could say, like, other than that, and I want to prove it to myself, my daughter and everyone else that said I couldn't do it. I've got a lot of people I've got to prove wrong, and I'd love to have another chance at it, but it's really in everyone else's hands now.

63. Later, under cross-examination by the prosecutor, the offender appeared to suggest that this particular offending was an aberration owing to his drug use (at 13.4-15): MR DYASON: Right. Yes, so would you accept that it's your attitude towards women that causes - coupled with substance abuse - that causes these violent outbursts? THE OFFENDER: No, I wasn't affected with substance at first incident, the ABHs. That's why I controlled my manner a lot better than what I've controlled myself recent, yes. MR DYASON: So that offending when you were 20 in 2012, substance use wasn't a problem? THE OFFENDER: No, like, I wasn't - not ice, no. Ice wasn’t in the picture. MR DYASON: So it was just your attitude towards women? THE OFFENDER: If you would like to say that, yes, like, I don't know, I've dated plenty of women, that was the only two incidents that’s happened, it was that one time.

64. However, he was later asked whether he assaulted friends in his “drug-fuelled states” (at 12.1-10): THE OFFENDER: No, I don't. [The current offending] was fuelled with jealousy. My partner, being my partner, I'm not saying the drug use just made me randomly react the way I reacted. It's because of my partner talking to another man. I'm rocking up while I'm deep on ice for three days straight. Obviously that made me react like, ‘why are you talking to my partner?’ And that's the only reason why I reacted like that, was because that's my partner. Not because I wanted to lash out at anybody. MR DYASON: So it was someone talking to a person that you saw as yours. Would you agree with that? THE OFFENDER: Yes, I guess so, yes. MR DYASON: And it was - it wasn't only Mr Trewartha that you assaulted that night. It was also your partner? THE OFFENDER: Because of the - that's exactly what I'm saying. Filled with jealousy. And I reacted like that because of the fuelled with it, the drugs are - the drugs didn't allow me to think the way I normally would have think – like, react the way I would have normally reacted. And I would have masked my emotions like I normally do. Every other time I can handle my - and like, look at my record. I'm not a violent person.

65. He was asked about his attitude to his partner after assaulting her (at 12.29-45): MR DYASON: You said to her, ‘You went next door, I saw you, what did you expect me to do Ash’? So you were telling her that it was her fault, do you agree with that? THE OFFENDER: I wouldn't say that no, no. MR DYASON: Now, you've just touched on that this was out of character? THE OFFENDER: Yes, yes you're going to point out I've done that, two ABHs when I was a lot younger. MR DYASON: Yes, when you were 20? THE OFFENDER: That was indeed, that was a family violence, yes, I remember that clearly. That was nothing like this nature of reoffending, there was nothing similar to this offence, nothing similar to that. MR DYASON: So it was violent conduct though? THE OFFENDER: It's like a family violent conduct, but it was nothing like the nature of this. MR DYASON: So was it with an intimate partner, was it with a partner? THE OFFENDER: Yes, that was intimate partner and there wasn't nothing, lashing out at somebody random, nothing like that.

66. He later suggested that Mr Trewartha “instigated” the incident and spoke about his attitude towards the assault of his partner (at 15.24-36): MR DYASON: Just on that, so we obviously don't see Mr Trewartha run at you [in the footage tendered], as you put it? THE OFFENDER: Yes. MR DYASON: What we do see is him retreating away from you and you continually … THE OFFENDER: Yes, because I wish there was a camera right there where you could see where it started, it was like a lot, and like, I wasn't even - I wasn't aggressive to begin with. I thought I was more retreating and he wasn't more the one instigating, but at the same time, I did go to his house. It was at the front of his house, it wasn't, like, I had, I'm going to take my accountability. I could have diffused the problem. I could have gone to my house and not his house. I went out the front and when I went out the front, he ran out. He ran out. He didn't need to instigate it, but he did, but I'd done what I'd done also.

67. I do not accept the offender’s evidence he was not aggressive to begin with, or that the offender was “retreating”. This is contrary to what is depicted in the CCTV footage and the accounts of witnesses. Unfortunately in his evidence the offender attempted to minimise the extent of his aggression, which speaks to his still limited insight into his offending.

68. I found the offender’s remorse to be genuine, but not particularly insightful. In particular, he appears still to blame both Mr Trewartha and his former partner for his actions, as well as emphasising his drug use around the time of the offending behaviour as explaining both the behaviour, and the admissions he made as recorded in the phone calls.

69. The limited insight which the offender has displayed lead me to regard his prospects of rehabilitation as being somewhat clouded. He will need to address his drug problems, and gain some insight into his controlling behaviour. Hopefully these matters can be addressed in custody by appropriate programs. He has expressed a willingness to engage with these. If a significant period of parole is imposed, this will enable the relevant authorities to judge his progress on these matters and take that into account in considering a grant of parole.

Time in custody

70. The offender has spent no time in custody in relation to these charges. He was bail refused on these charges on 3 April 2025, however, all the time spent in custody has been taken into account such that for the entirety of his period on remand for these offences he has been a sentenced prisoner: see R v Jember (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 213 at [20].

Current sentencing practice

71. The limitations of the function of comparable sentences in an individual sentencing task are well known and acknowledged by the High Court. No sentencing outcome is a precedent. Sentencing statistics and comparable cases do not define the range of available sentences nor place a cap on the upper or lower ranges of a possible sentence.

72. The prosecutor provided me with a table of comparable sentencing outcomes, which is an annexure to this judgment. In my view, this matter is comparable in seriousness with Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 and R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236, although of course there are points of difference. The obvious point is that the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm is among the most serious offences of violence in the criminal calendar. On behalf of the offender it was suggested that an appropriate term of imprisonment was in the realm of five years suspended after three. In light of the objective seriousness of this offence, and the limitations on remorse which I referred to above, that submission was unduly optimistic.

Consideration

73. Although not particularly the subject of submissions on sentence, I accept that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 are enlivened. The offender’s moral culpability is rightly to be regarded as being reduced by his childhood experiences, and I have taken this into account in determining the sentence. I note that Christensen AJ made that same finding when sentencing the offender in 2024: see DPP v Jember [2024] ACTSC 311 at [40].

74. The purposes of sentencing to which I must have regard are set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. As this was a matter which involved family violence, and family violence adjacent behaviour, I have had regard for those matters contained in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

75. I also have had regard to considerations of concurrency and totality. The harm suffered by the offender’s partner must be separately recognised. It is appropriate that there be some accumulation of the sentence for that matter upon the other sentence. However, in accumulating the sentences I must avoid crafting a sentence which is crushing.

76. It was of course accepted on all sides that nothing but a sentence of full-time imprisonment was warranted in this case (cf s 10(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act).

77. On the count of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm I will impose a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, reduced from ten years by applying a 10% reduction for the early plea of guilty, noting that I am precluded from applying what would otherwise be the applicable discount which would be 25%.

78. On the count of aggravated assault, I will impose a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, reduced from 18 months by applying approximately the same 10% reduction for the same reasons.

79. The total of the primary sentence will be 9 years and 6 months allowing for some measure of accumulation.

80. I note that pursuant to s 75 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act the offender is subject to an existing sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, imposed on 22 May 2025 and backdated to commence on 22 July 2024 and end on 21 November 2027 (the existing sentence). I further note that pursuant to s 66(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act the non-parole period of the existing sentence, set to conclude on 31 July 2026 will be automatically cancelled, and I will be required to reset the non-parole period.

81. Having regard to issues of totality, I propose to commence the primary sentence today, which means it will be partly cumulative on the existing sentence.

82. I will set a non-parole period which will constitute 50% of the total head sentence of the primary sentence calculated from today (although the commencement of the non-parole period will be backdated to the commencement of the existing sentence). The lengthy parole period will enable those responsible for the offender’s parole some flexibility in the light of any progress towards rehabilitation he demonstrates during his incarceration.

Orders

83. Fasil Jember, please stand: (1) For the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm (CAN 3713/2025) you are convicted and sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment to commence on 30 July 2026 and ending on 29 July 2035. (2) For the offence of aggravated common assault (CAN 3714/2025) you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment to commence on 30 September 2034 and ending on 29 January 2036. (3) I impose a total sentence of 9 years and 6 months, to commence on 30 July 2026 and ending on 29 January 2036. (4) I note pursuant to s 75 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 that the offender is subject to an existing sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment, imposed on 22 May 2025 and backdated to commence on 22 July 2024 and end on 21 November 2027 (the existing sentence). (5) I note pursuant to s 66(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 the non-parole period of the existing sentence, set to conclude on 31 July 2026 will be automatically cancelled. (6) Pursuant to s 65(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, I impose a non-parole period in relation to the existing and primary sentence to commence on 22 July 2024 and end on 29 April 2031. I certify that the preceding eighty-three [83] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice White. Associate: Date: ANNEXURE 1 Sentencing practice - Intentionally Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm (Crimes Act 1900 s 19)

Citation Summary Subjective Circumstances Sentence R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC The offender stabbed the victim five or six times to the The offender was found guilty 10 years and 9 months 157 side of the back in an attack at the bus interchange. following a trial by jury. The imprisonment The victim suffered a punctured lung and severed offender has a criminal history, but Refshauge J NPP: 5 years and 6 months intercostal artery. not violent offences for over 20 years. He had an ongoing struggle Offender’s sentence appeal with drug addiction. He did not was dismissed see Jovanovic accept responsibility and v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 considered himself the victim.

R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] The offence arose in the context of the sale of illicit Mr Bourne had a history of drug Head sentence: 8 years and 8 drugs. Mr Bourne struck the victim’s hand with a use and was a member of an months imprisonment ACTSC 35 sledgehammer. The victim suffered fractures to his Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. He was GBH: 6 years and Elkaim J hand requiring surgery and in the insertion of a 30 years old at sentence. He titanium screw. At the time of sentence, the victim expressed remorse. He came 9 months imprisonment had continuing pain and limited movement in his before the Court with a criminal (reduced from 9 years) fingers, with the possibility of amputation of one finger. history, including offences of violence. He was afforded a 25% NPP: 6 years and 3 months discount for his guilty plea.

R v Yuen (unreported, The offence was committed in custody. Mr Yuen 28y/o. Criminal history of violence. Head sentence: 28 years Supreme came out of his cell, took off his shirt, stretched, then imprisonment picked up a metal vacuum cleaner pipe. He Court of the ACT, 31 May GBH: 6 years and approached [the] victim from behind and hit him on Engaged with anger management 2013) the head with enough force to render him semi-rehabilitation while in custody. 6 months imprisonment SCC No 188 of 2012 conscious, then hit him two or three times more in the head, and then hit him hard in the face. NPP: 25 years SCC No 109 of 2011 The sentencing judge assessed the offending as ‘at Remorse displayed. Penfold J least the mid-range of objective seriousness’. R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No During the course of an aggravated burglary a Both offenders had significant Both offenders were sentenced 3) struggle ensued between the offenders and the victim. criminal histories, were on to 4 years imprisonment. A shot was fired, striking the victim in the left bicep. conditional liberty at the time of the [2018] ACTSC 305 The victim required surgery and ongoing offending and displayed limited Loukas-Karlsson J physiotherapy. remorse. Their prospects of rehabilitation were guarded. The offending was assessed at below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC During the course of an aggravated robbery, the victim The offender had a significant Head sentence: 8 years and 3 236 attempted to flee from the unit. The offender caught criminal history with some offences months imprisonment. the victim and stabbed him in the back. The victim of violence. He had a long history of Burns J GBH: 5 years imprisonment. suffered a penetrating chest injury to the left upper polysubstance abuse which drove back. his criminal conduct. He displayed NPP: 5 years. limited remorse.

R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] The offender attended the victim’s house with three 26 years old, limited criminal history 4 years imprisonment. ACTSC 24 other males in what was a targeted OMCG- related comprising traffic matters, no reprisal attack. A number of shots were fired at the remorse or acceptance of Mossop J house by the group, one of which severed the victim’s responsibility. finger. Whilst the harm suffered was at the low end of the spectrum, the circumstances in which the offending occurred were such that it was assessed at the mid-range of objective seriousness.

Director of Public The offence arose in the context of a family barbeque The offender had no criminal history, 3 years 8 months 24 days Prosecutions v where the offender was criticising his wife and other low risk of general reoffending and imprisonment (reduced from 4 family members gave him the impression that they reported a positive upbringing. He years and 8 months) Mavi [2026] ACTSC 56 were taking her side. The offender and the victim expressed regret and shame, NPP: 1 year, 7 months and 15 Slattery AJ began arguing and swearing at one and other before demonstrates appropriate insight days the offender grabbed a knife. The victim attempted to into the pain caused to the victim. flee to the garage, the offender followed and stabbed Offender found to be a person of him 4-5 times resulting in a lacerated spleen, fractured good character who has taken steps rib and heavy bleeding. The offender attended the to address alcohol use and anger police station immediately and showed remorse. management. DPP v Atem [2025] ACTSC The offender attended the victim’s home (the victim The offender plead guilty and 4 years imprisonment 301 was known to him as a friend of the family), broke received a 20% discount, he was a (reduced from 5 years) some windows and a scuffle ensued between them refugee from South Sudan and has Elkaim J where the victim dropped a brick he was holding. The a criminal history of violent NPP: 29 months offender stabbed the victim multiple times while he offending. was on the ground.

DPP v Torbert [2015] ACTSC The offender was charged with recklessly inflict The offender was 36, had a 5 years and 3 months 331 grievous bodily harm after he approached the substantial criminal history for minor imprisonment complainant from behind and struck the back of his leg offences and was diagnosed with Robinson AJ (reduced from 7 years) with a machete thereby severing his Achilles tendon. ADHD and paranoid schizophrenia. The offender unsuccessfully attempted a further strike The offender engaged in significant NPP: 3 years on the complainant who suffered cuts to his fingers illicit substance use. 25% discount. which caused ligament damage in the course of attempting to protect himself.