DPP v Kulacz

The offences

Offending in relation to [Isabella Gardener]

3. [Ms Gardener] was in an intimate relationship with the offender for 6 months. This relationship ended around the time of the offences, in May 2024. The offending occurred at the offender’s house, where he and [Ms Gardener] were staying. The offender and [Ms Gardener] argued about the offender messaging a woman he “messed around with” while he was dating [Ms Gardener]. When [Ms Gardener] tried to take the offender’s mobile phone, the offender slapped [Ms Gardener] in her left temple and left eye area with the base of his palm around 4 time, causing immediate pain (CC 2024/5946: Aggravated common assault).

4. The next day, the offender returned to his residence early in the morning after having been out drinking. An argument started again between the offender and [Ms Gardener] over the sending of messages by the offender. During that argument, the offender punched [Ms Gardener]’s left temple area using a closed fist. [Ms Gardener]’s head flew backwards and hit the wall. [Ms Gardener] felt immediate pain to her head. (CC 2024/9127: Aggravated common assault).

5. The offender then punched [Ms Gardener] in the left temple again with a closed fist, causing her to see black for a couple of seconds and fall backwards onto a fan on the floor. [Ms Gardener] felt significant pain to her back and face. (CC 2024/9128: Aggravated common assault).

6. [Ms Gardener] was then lying on her side on the floor with her knees tucked up when the offender kicked her at least six times in the ribs, back and stomach area causing immediate and significant pain. [Ms Gardener] pleaded with offender to stop a number of times. (CC 2024/9129: Aggravated common assault).

7. [Ms Gardener] then stood up. The offender punched her in the face around five times. Most of the punches connected with the left side of [Ms Gardener]’s face and at least one of the punches connected with her nose. [Ms Gardener] heard a crunching noise and felt severe pain to her nose. (CC 2024/9130: Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm). As a result of this assault, [Ms Gardener] sustained bruising to her eye and a fracture to her nose. Around a week after the offending, [Ms Gardener] underwent general anaesthetic to have her nose reset, and later in the year underwent a Rhino-septoplasty and Turbinectomy to correct ongoing injuries to her nose.

8. On the day after the offending, the offender sent [Ms Gardener] a message which said “Look if you wanna call the cops on my that’s totally fine but I do wanna apologise for doing what I did it wasn’t right at all sorry [Isabella]”. That message was followed by a second message which said “Just don’t ruin my life”. The offender subsequently wrote a message stating “Look [Isabella] im gone and your gone and im left with nothing I have nothing goodbye [Isabella] Im sorry for what I did okay” and “Just know I’m sorry okay I shouldn’t have done that and I love you”. In her response, [Ms Gardener] told the offender about the extent of her injuries, including that she would have to have her nose rebroken to make sure that it healed straight, but she assured the offender that she had not told anyone that he had caused the injuries. The offender responded “okay cool shouldn’t have acted like that and it wouldn’t have acted like that and it wouldn’t have happened”.

9. At the time of offending against [Ms Gardener], the offender was on a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) in relation to family violence offending against his mother and stepfather.

Offending in relation to [Georgie Minett]

10. [Ms Minett] was in a relationship with the offender for around 8 months from June 2024 to February 2025. In October 2024, [Ms Minett] and the offender were at a pub with two of the offender’s friends. At the time, [Ms Minett] was pregnant with the offender’s child. The offender became agitated and yelled at [Ms Minett] when one of his friends suggested that he should take [Ms Minett] home because she was pregnant. Soon after, the offender and [Ms Minett] left the pub and went to [Ms Minett]’s car. Before [Ms Minett] unlocked the car, the offender grabbed the door handle, detaching it from the door so that it was lying on the ground. (CC 2025/8720: Aggravated property damage).

11. The next day [Ms Minett] and the offender were driving in [Ms Minett]’s car and had an argument about a window in the car that the offender had damaged earlier that night. [Ms Minett] was driving and she pulled over explaining that she could no longer drive because she could not see properly from crying. The offender punched the rear vision mirror of the car with a closed fist. This caused the rear vision mirror to dislodge and hang from the socket and the windshield glass was smashed where the rear vision mirror had been attached. [Ms Minett] then told the offender to take his belongings and leave. The offender left the car and kicked the back passenger door, causing a large dent which covered nearly the entire middle section of the door. (CC 2025/2547 – Aggravated property damage).

12. [Ms Minett] told the offender to stop. The offender got back into the car and [Ms Minett] parked the car in the carpark. The offender blamed [Ms Minett] for causing him to damage the car. He offered to pay for the damage and said that he did not want the police to become involved. The offender paid [Ms Minett] $550 over the next three months. This sum was not sufficient to cover the cost of the repairs.

13. At the time of the offending against [Ms Minett], the offender was on bail in relation to the offending against [Ms Gardener].

Failure to appear after a bail undertaking

14. On 6 May 2025, the offender entered into a bail undertaking to appear in the Magistrates Court on 27 May 2025. This was in relation to the offending against [Ms Minett].

15. The offender failed to appear on 27 May 2025, which was the fifth mention of the matter. A warrant was issued for his arrest. At that stage, the offender had not yet entered any pleas with respect to the charges. The warrant was executed on 4 July 2025.

Victim Impact Statement

16. The prosecution tendered a Victim Impact Statement that had been written by [Ms Minett]. The statement was also read out in Court by counsel for the prosecution. In the statement, [Ms Minett] describes experiencing ongoing anxiety, flashbacks, overwhelm and distress since the offending. She says she struggles to sleep, she has difficulty trusting people and she no longer feels safe around others or in her own home. She describes how the offending has caused her “a lot of financial stress” and how the offender’s attempts to prevent her from contacting police left her feeling “powerless, isolated and trapped” and “completely alone”.

17. [Ms Minett] described that she felt betrayed and heartbroken that her partner at the time had caused damage to “something [she] worked so hard for”. She described how the offending impacted her first experience of pregnancy, a time where she was “already in a vulnerable position”. She explained that she had to start maternity leave earlier than planned and “[w]hat should have been a happy and special time in my life is now connected to fear and trauma”. She is now afraid to experience pregnancy again. She explains that the impact of the offending has continued into her motherhood, causing her to fear for her child’s safety and struggle to “be fully present with [her] child” because of the impact the offending has had on her mental health postpartum.

Subjective case

Corrective Services Reports

18. A Presentence Report and an Intensive Corrections Order Assessment Report (the presentence reports) were prepared for the offender. The reports describe the offender as having a “relatively stable upbringing”, although the offender’s biological father, who lived at the family home until the offender was five, suffered alcohol abuse and exhibited violent and emotionally abusive behaviour. The offender’s mother and stepfather are victims of previous family violence offences committed by the offender.

19. The offender reported receiving an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis as a child. He also self-reported major depression, anxiety and possible PTSD as a result of a break-in and alleged abuse by an ex-partner. The offender described previous use of cannabis as a teenager, cocaine as an adult and binge drinking for most of his adult life. He reported having been abstinent from alcohol and illicit substances for the previous four months.

20. The presentence reports reported that the offender disagreed with the Statement of Facts and “engaged in victim-blaming, minimising, and justification of his actions”. A later supplementary report did, however, contain some expressions of remorse. The offender was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending and was assessed as suitable for an Intensive Corrections Order.

Letters of Support

21. The offender’s current partner, mother, stepfather, employer and housemate wrote letters of support for the offender. The offender’s partner, with whom he has been with for 8 months, wrote a support letter described the offender as “careful, caring Kind [sic] and gentle”. The offender’s mother describes him as “a person of integrity, kindness and dedication to the community and his family” and “someone who takes responsibility for his actions”. The offender’s stepfather describes the offender as “a caring and respectful member of our family” and said that the offending “does not define who he is as a person”. The offender’s present housemate described the offender as “nurturing” towards her two children and a “trusted, safe adult”.

22. The offender’s employer described the offender as having a “strong work ethic” and being a “reliable and hardworking employee”. He said that the offender has a “positive attitude and contributes to a supportive work environment”. The offender’s employer is of the view that the offender has “potential to grow into a very capable tradesman”.

The Offender’s Letter to the Court

23. The offender provided a short letter of remorse. He “sincerely apologise[d] for [his] actions that led to [his] appearance in court”, said that he takes “full responsibility”. He said he has “now realised the hurt and effects [he has] brought”. He said that “this has been a wake-up call”, that he is “fully committed to making amends and ensuring this does not happen again”.

Determination

24. Other than the offence of failing to appear, each of the offences are family violence offences. They are statutorily aggravated by virtue of the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victims, and the breach of trust that is inherent in offending of this nature.

25. Further, because the offences are family violence offences, I am required to consider the matters specified in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). That provision requires me to have regard to the matters specified in the preamble to the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT).

26. Those matters relevantly include the following principles: 1. Family violence is unacceptable in any form; 2. Freedom from family violence is a human right; 3. The justice system should respect and protect all human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and international law; 4. That family violence is best addressed through a coordinated legal and social response of assistance to victims and the prevention of violence by such things as promoting the accountability of perpetrators of family violence and the appropriate intervention by the police and the courts.

27. The offending in this case involved serious incidents of family violence warranting stern denunciation in accordance with those principles.

28. The offending against [Ms Gardener] occurred in the offender’s home, a place where [Ms Gardener] was particularly vulnerable, as there were no witnesses, and no-one to whom she could turn to for assistance.

29. Three of the four common assaults against [Ms Gardener] involved the application of force to the victim’s head. The fourth common assault involved repeatedly kicking the victim to her body, as she was curled up, and pleading for him to stop. The offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily concerned the application of force to the victim’s face. As a consequence of that assault, the victim was required to undergo further painful surgery under a general anaesthetic.

30. The offending against [Ms Minett] concerned the infliction of significant damage to [Ms Minett]’s car. The first property damage offence is somewhat less serious than the second, which is a rolled up offence, which encompasses separate instances of damage. [Ms Minett] was pregnant at the time of each of the property damage offences and the offending was threatening to the victim. The offender continued to engage in acts of violence towards [Ms Minett]’s car, even after she became visibly distressed. The offender has repaid some of the cost of the damage to [Ms Minett]’s car. That repayment does not cover all of the cost and the offending has led to financial distress to [Ms Minett]. I was informed by counsel for the offender that the offender does not oppose the making of a reparation order with respect to the balance of the cost of repair. However, the harm caused by this offence was not limited to the damage to [Ms Minett]’s property. As [Ms Minett]’s victim impact statement describes, the circumstances of the offending has also resulted in lasting emotional harm to [Ms Minett].

31. The offence of failing to appear related to a failure of the offender to appear at a mention of the matter. As the prosecutor accepted, whilst a failure to appear at a mention is less serious than failing to appear at a hearing, the offender’s failure to appear caused delay in the matter, and caused inconvenience to the victim, the prosecution and the Court.

32. The nature of each of the offences, but particularly the family violence offences, is such as to require significant weight to be given to denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, recognition of harm to the victim and the need to make the offender accountable for his actions

33. The offender is only 21 years old. The law recognises that additional weight should be given to the need for rehabilitation for such a young offender.

34. The offender has done little to address the underlying matters which have led to his offending to date. Although he has previously recognised the connection between his mental health and family violence offending, he has taken no action to receive treatment or other support. He has, however, obtained employment which is a protective factor. He has also, according to the reports, stopped drinking alcohol.

35. It is clear from the references that the offender has the support of his family, who speak in positive terms of his character. However, the references did not fully engage with the seriousness of the offending. Some of the references made no reference to the offending at all, whilst other references spoke of the offending in general terms. None seriously grappled with the harm which the offender has caused either victim.

36. Nonetheless, despite my concerns about the references, given the offender’s youth, I am satisfied that, with support and education, he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

37. There is evidence in the reports that the offender has mental health issues (although there is no evidence of any formal diagnosis on the part of a psychologist or psychiatrist), and there is also evidence in the reports that the offender experienced family violence within the home when he was very young. I accept that these matters are capable of providing some context for the offending. The offender’s moral culpability is somewhat reduced by these matters and I will slightly reduce the weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation as a result.

38. As noted above, the offender has written a letter of apology to the Court, and a number of the references described the offender as expressing regret for the offending. However, these expressions need to be viewed against the offender’s response following his offending at the time. Significantly, the text messages sent to [Ms Gardener] indicate that the offender was more concerned about the prospect of [Ms Gardener] reporting the matter to police and “ruining his life” than about the pain and physical harm that he had inflicted upon her. The offender’s various accounts of the offending to the presentence report authors paint a similar picture, with the offender, at least initially, engaging in “victim-blaming, minimising, and justification of his actions”.

39. In those circumstances, the offender’s fairly brief expression of remorse in his letter to this Court, which was not given on oath, must be viewed with significant caution. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender is remorseful for the offending.

40. The offender’s lack of demonstrated insight into his offending is particularly concerning when viewed against the overall context in which the offending occurred. At the time of the offending against [Ms Gardener], the offender was subject to two good behaviour orders relating to family violence offending. At the time of the offending against [Ms Minett], the offender was on bail in relation to the offences against [Ms Gardener]. The continuation of family violence offending in the context of two different relationships, and in breach of these different forms of conditional liberty requires that significant weight be given to specific deterrence, accountability and the need to protect the community.

41. In view of the seriousness of the offences committed, there was no dispute that the s 10 threshold is crossed, and that no sentence other than imprisonment is appropriate for the family violence offences. The prosecution conceded that the s 10 threshold is not crossed for the offence of failing to appear. I will impose a fine for that offence.

42. The sentences to be imposed will incorporate a 25% reduction for the offending against [Ms Gardener], recognising the offender’s early plea of guilty, which occurred prior to the listing of the matter for Criminal Case Conference. There will be a 15% reduction for the offending against [Ms Minett], recognising the later entry of a plea of guilty for those matters (that is, on the date that the proceedings were listed for hearing).

43. In setting the terms of imprisonment, I will take care to apply principles of totality. Recognising that the latter part of the offending against [Ms Gardener] related to a course of conduct, the sentences to be imposed for the offending against [Ms Gardener] will have some concurrency. The sentences for the less serious common assaults (the slap and the first punch) will be entirely concurrent with the sentences to be imposed for the more serious offences (the punch which caused [Ms Gardener] to “see black” and the kicking). They will also be entirely concurrent with the sentence for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm. There will be less concurrency for the more serious common assault offences and the aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm, so as to recognise the separate harm caused by the separate applications of physical force. The sentences for the offending against [Ms Minett] will be partially concurrent with each other and also partially concurrent with the offending against [Ms Gardener].

44. The breach of the good behaviour order has been taken into account in assessing the appropriate sentences to be imposed for the offending against [Ms Gardener]. In those circumstances, and where the offender had completed most of the term of good behaviour order, I have determined not to take any action on the breach of that order.

45. On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that the Court should consider imposing a sentence that did not involve a period of full-time imprisonment, such as an Intensive Correction Order. As described above, the offences involved the infliction of harm against two separate victims, each in a family violence context and whilst the offender was subject to different forms of conditional liberty. I do not consider that the need for denunciation, specific deterrence, to render the offender accountable for his actions or to recognise the harm caused to each victim can be met by the imposition of a non-custodial penalty. However, in view of the offender’s youth, his mental health, his support and the need to facilitate his rehabilitation, I will impose a shorter than usual non-parole period.

46. The overall period that I will impose is a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of imprisonment for 18 months. I will impose a $500 fine for the offence of failing to appear.

Orders

47. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of aggravated assault (involving family violence) (CC2024/5946), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 months, discounted from 6 months and 21 days, commencing on 11 March 2026 and expiring on 10 August 2026 (2) For the offence of aggravated assault (involving family violence) (CC2024/9127), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months, discounted from 13 months and 11 days, commencing on 11 March 2026 and expiring on 10 January 2027 (3) For the offence of aggravated assault (involving family violence) (CC2024/9128), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year, discounted from 16 months, commencing on 11 March 2027 and expiring on 10 March 2028 (4) For the offence of aggravated assault (involving family violence) (CC2024/9129), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year, discounted from 16 months, commencing on 11 September 2027 and expiring on 10 September 2028 (5) For the offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (involving family violence) (CC 2024/9130), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, discounted from 2 years, commencing on 11 March 2026 and expiring on 10 September 2027 (6) For the offence of aggravated destroy or damage property (CC2025/8720), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months, discounted from 7 months and 2 days, commencing on 11 April 2028 and expiring on 10 October 2028 (7) For the offence of aggravated destroy or damage property (CC2025/2547), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 months, discounted from 8 months and 7 days, commencing on 11 August 2028 and expiring on 10 March 2029 (8) A non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment is imposed, commencing on 11 March 2026 and expiring on 10 September 2027 (9) For the offence of failure to appear (CC2025/7161) the offender is convicted and sentenced to a $500 fine (10) No further action is to be taken on the breach of the GBO (CC2023/1702 and CC2022/2005) (11) Pursuant to s 19(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Act) 2005 (ACT), the offender is ordered to make reparation to [Ms Minett] in the sum of $5,214.73, to be paid into the Court.

I certify that the preceding forty-seven [47] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 27 March 2026