DPP v Newman

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: DPP v Newman (a pseudonym) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 528 Hearing Date: 3 July 2025, 10 November 2025 Decision Date: 2 December 2025 Before: Taylor J Decision: See [162]-[163]. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Pilot Circle Sentencing List – Elders and Respected Persons Panel – wounding – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – use carriage service to threaten serious harm – use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence – use carriage service to threaten to kill – offending whilst on conditional liberty – offender in breach of previous sentencing orders – profoundly disadvantaged childhood – reduction in moral culpability – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – significant criminal history – parity considerations – offender sentenced to a partially suspended period of imprisonment upon entering into a good behaviour order Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 110, 116ZP Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss, 7, 34B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 21(1), 24(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20A Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 474.15(1), 474.15(2), 474.17 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 43 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42; 21 ACTLR 59 Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 DPP v Black (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 219 DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 240 DPP v Creighton [2025] ACTSC 511 DPP v Hudson [2024] ACTSC 159 DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192 DPP v Stasinos [2023] ACTSC 179 DPP v Swain (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 209 Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30 Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; 184 CLR 132 R v AJ (unreported, ACTSC, 5 February 2013, SCC 91 of 2012) R v Bloxsome [2019] ACTSC 217 R v Campbell (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 240 R v EN [2020] ACTSC 302 R v Forsyth [2015] ACTSC 326 R v Gordon (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 254 R v Howell [2018] ACTSC 155 R v Redmond (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 295 R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125 R v Tilley (unreported, ACTSC, 8 November 2011, SCC 17 of 2011) R v Vu [2018] ACTSC 359 Texts Cited: Bugmy Bar Book, Child Abuse and Neglect (June 2024) Megan Davis, Family is Culture: Independent Review of Aboriginal Children in Out-of-Home-Care in NSW (Independent Report commissioned by the NSW Minister for Families and Communities, 2019) Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Stacey Newman (a pseudonym) (Offender) Representation: Counsel H Robinson (DPP) S Baker-Goldsmith (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Peter Agoth & Associates (Offender) Elders: B Hodges S Munro P McGrady File Number: SCC 162 of 2024 SCC 261 of 2025 SCC 274 of 2025 SCC 330 of 2025 TAYLOR J: Introduction

1. The offender, Ms Stacey Newman (a pseudonym), is to be sentenced for the following offences: (a) Series 1: SCC 162 of 2025 (i) SCCAN2024/188: wounding, contrary to s 21(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment. (ii) CC2024/2407: assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24(1) of the Crimes Act, which attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment. (b) Series 2: SCC 261 of 2025 (i) CC2025/7430: use carriage service to threaten serious harm, contrary to s 474.15(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Cth Criminal Code’), which attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years of imprisonment. (ii) CC2025/7434: use carriage service to threaten serious harm, contrary to s 474.15(2) of the Cth Criminal Code, which attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years of imprisonment. (iii) CC2025/7435: use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, contrary to s 474.17 of the Cth Criminal Code, which attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment. (iv) CC2025/7437: use carriage service to threaten to kill, contrary to s 474.15(1) of the Cth Criminal Code, which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment. (v) CC2025/9038: contravene family violence order, contrary to s 43 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, 5 years of imprisonment, or both. (c) Series 3: SCC 274 of 2025 (i) CC2025/10345: contravene family violence order, contrary to s 43 of the Family Violence Act, which attracts a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, 5 years of imprisonment, or both. (d) Series 4: SCC 330 of 2025 (i) CC2025/4629: contravene family violence order, contrary to s 43 of the Family Violence Act, which attracts a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, 5 years of imprisonment, or both.

2. Ms Newman participated in a sentencing conversation as part of the ACT Supreme Court Pilot Circle Sentencing List on 3 July 2025.

3. In DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 240 at [1]-[14], I explained in detail the context and purpose of the Circle Sentencing List. It is unnecessary to repeat that explanation here. This process required Ms Newman to directly engage with the Elder’s Panel and to take responsibility for her conduct as well as to use her own voice to tell her story.

4. When Ms Newman’s matter was heard by the Elders panel, only series 1 was before this Court as the additional matters had not yet been committed to this court.

5. In those circumstances, the parties agreed that it was sensible for all of Ms Newman’s matters to be dealt with in the same sentencing proceedings. There was no objection taken to the sentencing conversation with the Elders Panel on 3 July 2025 informing, where relevant, a consideration of the additional matters particularly with regard to Ms Newman’s subjective circumstances. This is the approach I have taken.

Agreed facts

Series 1

6. On 17 February 2024 at around 4:20am, Mr T, Mr N, Mr I, Mr U and Mr L walked past a group of people sitting at the benches in Petrie Plaza. At this time, Mr T and Mr N were consuming nitrous oxide from nitrous oxide cannisters. Mr N was wearing orange shorts and a black Adidas t-shirt. Mr T was wearing a white t-shirt, black jeans and a black bumbag.

7. The group of people sitting at the benches included the offender and [co-offender]. The offender was wearing white sneakers, black leggings and a black Puma branded t-shirt. The co-offender was wearing an orange and blue jacket, black pants, and a black hat.

8. A verbal altercation occurred between the co-offender, the offender and Mr N over Mr N’s use of the nitrous oxide cannisters.

9. Shortly after, the offender grabbed Mr N’s shirt and punched Mr N at least eight times in the face.

10. Mr T, Mr U and Mr N started to walk away from the incident towards Bunda Street. They were pursued by the second group, which included the offender.

11. Mr T swung a fist at an individual of the other group, which did not connect. The offender pushed Mr T into some garbage bins that were located near ‘Off Ya Tree’, Petrie Plaza.

12. At approximately 4:25am Mr N was walking towards Bunda Street, when he was approached by the co-offender. The co-offender punched Mr N to the left side of his head, causing Mr N to fall backwards and hit his head on the concrete pavement. Mr N was rendered unconscious for approximately two minutes.

13. During this time, the offender ran towards Mr T. The offender pulled out a small knife and swung it towards Mr T’s face using her right arm. Mr T raised his left arm to block the knife and was stabbed in his left hand. Mr T’s hand immediately began to bleed.

14. Mr T immediately ran towards Bunda Street, while being pursued by the offender. Mr T’s hand continued to bleed, leaving a trail of blood. The prosecution case is that the offender followed Mr T while holding a small knife in her right hand. The remainder of both groups walked towards Bunda Street.

15. The incident was captured on CCTV footage. The prosecution played the footage at sentence.

16. BV and LV were in Bunda Street at this time and observed the trail of blood. BV called 000 and requested police attendance.

17. Shortly after 4:35am, police arrived and observed Mr L, Mr I and Mr N walking along Cooyong Street. Mr N started walking towards Braddon and was later located by police laying on the grass next to the footpath along Torrens Street. Mr N was observed to be very disorientated and unable to articulate what had happened.

18. About 4.46am police attended 7-Eleven in Braddon. There they located Mr T and Mr U. Mr T had a bandage on his left hand with blood coming out of it. There was a significant amount of blood on his clothing and on the injured hand.

Post offence

19. About 4:50am paramedics DU and MS were on shift at Dickson Ambulance Station when they were dispatched to 7-Eleven Braddon, in relation to Mr T’s bleeding at that location.

20. Shortly after the paramedics arriving at 7-Eleven Braddon, Mr T sat on a stretcher at the back of the ambulance.

21. DU had a conversation with Mr T. Notes written by DU state the following: Pt states he was in a fight with multiple people this morning. A woman attempted to stab him in the face, pt put his L hand up to defend himself and was stabbed through the L hand. Pt described the knife as a ‘fishing knife’ and states it went through his palm and out the other side. ACTAS did not see the wound as it was dressed prior to arrival on the scene. Injuries

22. Mr N was transported to the emergency department of the Canberra Hospital on 17 February 2024. The following observations were made: (a) Swelling to jaw; (b) Bloody teeth supposedly intact

23. He was discharged and diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture. The offender accept [sic] that this injury was caused by her assault of Mr N.

24. Mr T was transported to the emergency department of the Canberra Hospital on 17 February 2024.

25. Later that day, he underwent a procedure involving the following: (a) Excisional debridement of wound following by copious washout.

26. Following the procedure, Mr T’s injury was reviewed on 12 March 2024. Observations made of his injury were that the extensor policies longus tendon appeared completely torn and retracted at the level of the wrist/carpal bones deep to the scar site with approximately 23mm separation of the tendon ends.

27. Mr T underwent surgery on 14 March 2024 for a left thumb extensor pollicis longus tendon reconstruction.

28. At 11am the offender presented herself to City Police Station where she was arrested.

Series 2, 3 and 4

29. Mr S is the ex-partner of the offender. They were in an intimate relationship for about five years. They share a child together – Master S, born [sic].

30. In December 2024, the offender was remanded in the Alexander Maconochie Centre (“the AMC”). She made a number of phone calls to Mr S that were recorded by the AMC. CC2025/7430 – 19 December 2024

31. At about 8.55am on 19 December 2024, the offender called Mr S and said, during a conversation about Mr S potentially having another baby: You know what I personally would do… steal his fucking dad’s car and run the bitch over… I’d run the bitch over… If she’s ever pregnant I’d stab it right in the guts… especially if another kid comes along in this world… it’ll be dead before it’s even been born.

32. At about 10.14am that same day, during another call to Mr S, while speaking about seeing a therapist, the offender said: If he’s not going to let me see [Master S], I’m going to take him and take [Master S] out… Holding him at the zoo next time, I’m gonna push em both over to the tiger.

33. In that same phone call, when talking about Mr S’s friendship with his ex-partner, the offender said: I’m gonna bash her when I see her. You’re still friends with her on Tik Tok, Instagram and Facebook… I abused her earlier this year over you.

34. At about 4.22pm that same day, the offender called Mr S. They discussed Mr S having drinks and attending an upcoming party with a woman named [redacted]. The offender said: Swear on my kid’s life, she’s not using her kid as a shield anymore in front of me... That kid can be there while her mother is getting bashed… You know I’m gonna jump all over her head… I’ll probably stab this slut… I just wanna stab the slut. CC2025/7434 – 27 December 2024

35. At about 9.46am on 27 December 2024, the offender called Mr S. There was a conversation about wanting more children. Mr S said words to the effect that he wanted another child but knew “if it wasn’t with you, it’s gonna get killed”. The offender said: I swear on all my kid’s life, if you have another kid, I’d be happy to do jail over that bitch and that unborn child. CC2025/7435 – 29 December 2024

36. At about 11.17am on 29 December 2024, the offender called Mr S. They spoke about where Mr S was going. The offender said: I’m gonna put a tracker on your car when I get out… I own you nigga… I own you cunt. CC2025/7347 – 30 December 2024

37. At about 9.20am on 30 December 2024, the offender called Mr S. Mr S said words to the effect of, “What if I get a different baby mumma?” The offender replied: Even if I don’t know about her and it’s hidden the whole nine months that baby will still be dead, when it’s walking this earth. The Family Violence Order

38. On 29 January 2025, Mr S attended Tuggeranong police station to raise his concern about the comments made in the calls from the AMC. He was advised to obtain a family violence order (“FVO”).

CC2025/4629 – 26 April 2025

41. At about 8pm on Saturday 26 April 2025, Mr S was at the Canberra Irish Pub in the company of Mr Q.

42. The offender called Mr S from an unknown number. Mr S borrowed Mr Q’s phone and recorded the conversation.

43. The call lasted about five minutes. Mr S told the offender repeatedly that she should not be contacting him. CC2025/9038 – 22-25 March 2025

44. At about 11.56am on Saturday 22 March 2025, Mr S received a friend request on Facebook from username “[redacted].” The profile picture was of Master S. Mr S had previously been friends with the account, which belonged to the offender.

45. Mr S took a screenshot of the friend request. When he then unlocked his phone and opened the Facebook application, the friend request had been removed and the “[redacted]” account had blocked him.

46. At about 8.04am on Tuesday 25 March 2025, Mr S missed a call from an unknown private number. At about 8.05am, he received another call from an unknown private number and recognised the offender’s voice.

47. Mr S told the offender not to contact him. The offender said words to the effect of: What the fuck is that slut doing laying down with my son, she can’t replace him, I am his mum… wait till I see the slut.

48. The call lasted about 36 seconds.

CC2025/10345 – 17 September 2025

49. At about 6.01pm on Wednesday 17 September 2025, the police attended an address in [redacted] ACT in response to reports that the offender was in the company of both of the protected persons.

50. Mr S, present at that address with Master S, and several other witnesses said that the offender had been present and left prior to the arrival of police.

51. Police left the address.

52. At about 7.30pm, police re-attended that address to speak to Mr S. Upon arrival, police saw the offender through the window of the premises.

53. Police entered the residence and found the offender hiding behind a curtain in the bathroom. The offender said that she was aware of the FVO but was present in relation to a parenting plan.

54. The parenting plan provided for Master S to live with Mr S from 5pm Thursday to 5pm Sunday, with handover to take place on 5pm Thursday at Mr S’s residence and 5pm Sunday at the offender’s residence.

55. It did not provide for the offender to be in the presence of Mr S or Master S on Wednesdays. Nature and circumstances of the offending

56. The wounding and the assault occasioning actual bodily harm offences occurred as part of a public confrontation between the victims, the offender and the offender’s brother. The offences were committed in quick succession as part of one incident. Both offences represent a spontaneous, rather unsophisticated response to insult the offender perceived on behalf of her brother.

Wounding (SCCAN2024/188)

57. An assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence of wounding requires consideration of the mechanism of the wounding and the extent of any injury.

58. The offender pursued the victim and swung a small knife toward his face, a vulnerable area of his body. The victim suffered a wound to his hand after raising it as a defensive response.

59. The knife punctured the victim’s hand to a significant degree. The victim was admitted to hospital and discharged that same day after surgery performed under general anaesthetic. The wound would have caused pain, distress and inconvenience.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/2407)

60. An assessment of this offence requires a consideration of the degree of violence used or the ferocity of the attack, and the consequent injury: see R v Redmond (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 295 at [12].

61. The offending involved several closed fist strikes to the victim’s face, a vulnerable part of his body. The victim was unsteady on his feet and attempting to retreat from the offender and the conflict when he was struck by the offender.

62. The victim’s nose broke and did not require surgery, though undoubtedly caused pain and discomfort.

Carriage service offences (CC2025/7430; CC2025/7434; CC2025/7435; CC2025/7347)

63. At the time of this series of offences the offender was not subject to a Family Violence Order (FVO) which prohibited her from engaging in certain conduct toward the victim. The offences are ‘family violence’ offences as defined because of the relationship between the offender and the victim.

64. It was accepted by the prosecution that each telephone call commenced and proceeded in a civil manner as a discussion between the offender and the victim about their son. This is consistent with the victim consenting to take the call from the offender who was remanded in custody at the AMC at the time they occurred.

65. At various points in each call subject of charge, the offender became angry and resorted to abusive and/or harassing language. The prosecutor accepted that threats made were unspecific and unable to be realised.

66. Ms Baker-Goldsmith for the offender accurately submitted that the offending globally was “spontaneous, unsophisticated, indeterminate, inferential, and had a significant degree of puffery”. Consistent with that characterisation the prosecution conceded that these were not offences where the only appropriate outcome was a period of imprisonment. A concession with which I agreed.

CC2025/7430 – use carriage service to threaten serious harm on 19 December 2024

67. The relevant factors for consideration for the offence of use carriage service to threaten serious harm include the victim’s fear, the content and number of calls, the duration of calls, the nature of the threats, and the location of the victim when receiving the call: see R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125 at [79].

68. This offence involved a series of threats across several phone calls, spanning most of the day. The threats were directed to a range of persons. Some of those persons were not specifically identified but rather the threats were directed vaguely at any woman with whom the victim would have a child. The prosecution accurately identified that the gravamen of the offending in this case was the controlling nature of the threats, intending the victim to fear harm against other persons.

CC2025/7434 – use carriage service to threaten serious harm on 27 December 2024

69. The offender by inference made a single threat to any future partner and child of the victim.

CC2025/7435 – use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence on 29 December 2024

70. The quantity, the nature, the content of and the fear caused by the calls are all relevant factors: see DPP v Hudson [2024] ACTSC 159 at [47].

71. This offence was made out when the offender told the victim that she was going to put a tracker on his car on her release, and that she “owned” him. CC2025/7437 – use carriage service to threaten to kill on 30 December 2024

72. As the prosecution noted, relevant factors for this offence include those already identified, such as the nature, content and fear caused by the threat.

73. This offence was a single, unsophisticated and indistinct threat to kill any future child the victim had with another partner. The prosecution accurately submitted that this offence was intended to cause fear in the victim to control his participation in their relationship.

Contravene family violence order (CC2025/9038; CC2025/4629; CC2025/10345)

74. As McWilliam J outlined in DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 (an appeal by the offender was dismissed, Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30) the relevant factors to be considered in an assessment of the objective seriousness of this offence are the content, the means, the location, the duration, the intention and the level of premeditation which attend to the commission of the offence.

CC2025/9038 – 22-25 March 2025

75. This offence was established by a Facebook friend request and two phone calls. One of the phone calls was answered. The call was brief but deliberate and the offender was abusive. The offence occurred approximately two months after the offender was served with the order.

CC2025/4629 – 26 April 2025

76. This offence was a phone call which was approximately 5 minutes in length. The victim told the offender during the call not to contact him. The offending was deliberate though unsophisticated and occurred approximately three months after the offender was served with the order.

CC2025/10345 – 17 September 2025

77. This offence was made out by the offender’s presence at the premises of the person protected under the FVO. She was located at the premises by police hiding behind a curtain. I am satisfied that in those circumstances the offender knew her conduct was in breach of the order. The prosecution accepted that the offender was present in the victims at home, at least with the victim’s knowledge. Whilst I readily acknowledge the the obligation is on the offender to comply with the order which restricts her behaviour (and not the victim’s), the circumstances of her presence in the victim’s home lend support to the submission advanced on her behalf as to the difficulty she has managing the conflict in her relationship with the victim. Suffice it to say that this does not mitigate the offending conduct, but it does go some way toward explaining it.

Conditional liberty and breach matters

78. The offender was on conditional liberty at the time she committed each of the offences.

79. At the time of committing the series 1, 2, 3 and 4 offences the following orders were in place: (a) A 12-month good behaviour order for assaulting a frontline community service provider (CC2023/4821), which was imposed 15 December 2023; (b) A 6-month good behaviour order for threatening property damage (CC2023/1676), which was imposed 15 December 2023; (c) A 12-month Commonwealth good behaviour order for using a carriage service to threaten serious harm (CC2023/1678), which was imposed 15 December 2023; (d) A 12-month Commonwealth good behaviour order for using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend (CC2023/1677), which was imposed 15 December 2023; (e) A sentence of 10 months of imprisonment suspended on a 12-month good behaviour order for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2021/173), which was imposed 25 May 2023; and (f) A 12-month good behaviour order for making a demand with a threat to endanger health (CC2023/1675), which was imposed 15 March 2023.

80. On 18 December 2024 the offender was resentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court in relation to CC2021/173 to a 6-month term of imprisonment suspended on entering a 8-month good behaviour order.

81. The offender is in breach of that new suspended sentence order by virtue of the commission of series 2, 3 and 4. The good behaviour order has now expired but I am nonetheless required to deal with the offender for the breach by imposing the sentence or re-sentencing the offender pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT).

82. By the commission of fresh offences, the offender betrayed the opportunity to be in the community. I have considered those factors helpfully collated by McWilliam J in DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192 at [9] as well as her Honour’s comprehensive analysis of the court’s task in the face of a breach of a suspended sentence order. I have had access to the statement of facts for the original Territory offences (annexed to these remarks) and note that CC2021/173 occurred on 27 April 2020 when Ms Newman was an inmate at the AMC.

83. Counsel for the offender conceded that it would be appropriate in the circumstances, noting the age of the original offence, for the suspended period of imprisonment to be imposed to indicate the Court’s disapproval of such orders being breached to which I would add to mark the history of breaching conduct engaged in by the offender since the original offence occurred.

84. All of the Territory good behaviour orders have now all expired.

85. As the prosecution noted, the court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the breaches of the Commonwealth orders (CC2023/1678 and CC2023/1677) as information must be laid before a magistrate: see s 20A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Subjective circumstances

86. The circle sentencing conversation before the Elder’s Panel, three Intensive Corrections Order Assessment Reports (ICOAR’s), a report of Ms Vanessa Edwige, as well as thoughtful submissions made by Ms Baker-Goldsmith, comprehensively canvassed Ms Newman’s background, history and personal circumstances.

87. It is beyond doubt that Ms Newman had a profoundly disadvantaged childhood which set her up for a lifetime of challenges with respect to emotional regulation, mental health, substance abuse and trauma. She was in out-of-home care at an early age and from that age was exposed to substance misuse, domestic violence, child maltreatment, child sexual abuse, interrupted schooling and homelessness. She has, on any view, engaged in many of the behaviours she was exposed to as a child in her adult life.

88. Ms Newman is a 30-year-old Kamilaroi and Wiradjuri woman through the ancestral lines of her mother and father. She was born in Toowoomba, QLD, and her parents were together when she was born. She is the second eldest of 14 children [redacted]. At three days old, Ms Newman was given to her maternal grandmother and aunty who lived in Dalby, QLD, whilst her biological mother and siblings lived in Canberra, ACT. She was the only child who did not live with her biological mother, and she did not have any contact with her biological mother or siblings whilst she lived with her grandmother and aunty. She resided with seven cousins who exposed her to criminality as did other extended family members.

89. Ms Newman attended a range of schools in her primary and secondary schooling years. She reported she had been in special education class from kindergarten to year 3 and attended a school for disengaged and vulnerable young people following year 8. She was suspended frequently for fighting, smoking marijuana, swearing at teachers, and truancy.

90. [Redacted]. When Ms Newman found out “mum was [her] mum and I had a whole other family [she] wanted to meet them”. She moved to Canberra at 11 years of age. Ms Edwige recorded that Ms Newman lived with her mother and siblings and that she was exposed to alcohol abuse, marijuana misuse and domestic violence. Her mother’s partner was violent. Ms Newman found it difficult to settle into her new home and she was eventually subject to action by Child Youth and Protection Services (‘CYPS’). Consequently, Ms Newman and her siblings were separated. She went to several foster care placements. None of the foster carers were Aboriginal. Ms Newman was placed in refuges and residential care homes. She experienced physical abuse in these placements. At age 12, Ms Newman was sent to Quamby Youth Detention Centre and was “in and out” until she was 16.

91. Ms Edwige cited the following from the Bugmy Bar Book: Child Abuse and Neglect: Child maltreatment leads to cognitive alterations including distrust of others, hypervigilance to threat, impaired emotion recognition and regulation, and reduced responsiveness to rewards. Experiences of child maltreatment heighten threat perception, which activates the body’s stress response and sensitises the neurobiological systems, making an individual more vulnerable to mental illness.

Evidence of TG

114. At the sentencing hearing on 10 November 2025, TG was called by the offender to give evidence. TG described herself as Ms Newman’s “bonus mum” and indicated they had a family like relationship.

115. TG accepted that there was period where she and Ms Newman had fallen out but confirmed that they have now reconciled. TG gave evidence that she will be able to provide Ms Newman with emotional and practical support for Ms Newman upon her release including with respect to her desire to be reunited with her son.

116. TG confirmed that when Ms Newman was on bail, she lived with her. That is no longer possible because of TG’s involvement in CYPS proceedings which prohibit another adult residing in her home.

Letter to the court by Ms Newman

117. Ms Newman authored a letter to the court in relation to these proceedings.

118. She highlighted the events on 19 February 2024 when her ex-partner left town with her child and expressed regret for the choices she made out of “sheer panic”.

119. Ms Newman listed the supports she contacted which included Winnunga, Yeddung Murra and the Women’s Legal Centre and her “last resort” was the Adult Mental Health Unit at the Canberra Hospital.

120. Ms Newman stated: A police officer, a doctor and mental health team arrived at my house to calm me and to assist me in handling my emotions to steer me to stay safe. However, I felt my voice wasn't heard and unfortunately I made some poor choices which has lead me here today. Since my ex partner took our young son and fled town, I have not been the same person. I miss my little boy so much and has brought me so much joy. His little life changed mine forever. I have never felt such love since the death of my late partner who passed away in custody in 2018. I hope that we can work towards the greater good and a life free from crime. I am not proud of my behaviour but I hope this explains what has brought me before you today. Reference letter from LH

121. Counsel for the offender tendered a reference under the hand of LH, a personal friend of Ms Newman. She detailed the positive aspects of Ms Newman’s parenting which she admired and Ms Newman’s commitment to their friendship. LH confirmed the devastating effect upon Ms Newman of the loss of the relationship with her son.

Responsibility for the offending

122. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood must be given “full weight”. In Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44], the High Court explained that childhood disadvantage does not “diminish with the passage of time and repeat offending” but does not have the same “(mitigatory) relevance for all purposes of punishment”.

123. Whilst there need not be any causal connection between an offender’s childhood deprivation and their offending conduct, in this instance many of the effects catalogued by Ms Edwige of the kind of childhood the offender experienced can be seen in the conduct now before this Court; emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, poor decision making. The effect of the offender’s childhood experience is such that she should not bear the same degree of responsibility as an offender who did not have the same negative experiences in childhood.

124. Ms Edwige concluded that at the time of the offences Ms Newman was likely “operating under conditions of extreme psychological distress, cognitive impairment associated with trauma, depression and grief. These factors, in combination with her presenting mental health issues would have substantially compromised her ability to exercise sound judgment and fully appreciate at the time the wrongfulness of the act”. Further, Ms Newman’s disorders “along with her childhood disadvantage, significant losses and overwhelming grief and exposure to intimate partner violence had a significant clinical impact on her emotional and behavioural state impacting her ability to make appropriate decisions and exercise good judgment”.

125. Giving full weight to Ms Newman’s profound childhood disadvantage results in a reduction in her moral culpability which moderates the weight of general deterrence, punishment and denunciation.

Remorse and rehabilitation

126. Ms Newman has demonstrated a degree of remorse for her offending observing to Ms Edwige that she should not have wounded the victim and she is sorry for reacting as she did to someone who was “just trying to help his mate”. Ms Edwige concluded that Ms Newman was “very remorseful for her behaviour”. This was consistent with remarks attributed to Ms Newman by the author if the ICOAR including that she was open to restorative processes.

127. Ms Newman accepted that her anger issues and substance misuse played a large role in her offending. At the circle sentencing conversation, she noted that she “was on a bit of everything that night”, and provided context to the lead up to the wounding offence: [H]ad had a bit of alcohol, a bit of G, and a bit of ice that night. So I was all over the shop. But what led up to it was, three days prior before that I tried to get help from Mental Health, the police, Yeddung Mura, the hospital, because [Mr S] took our son, took him off me and wouldn't return him. So that's what led up to this, me being so angry and violent that night, and just going out to get on drugs. I tried to ask for help to get my son back, but couldn't. And then I just went out and just self-meditated [sic], self - like, got on drugs and that.

128. In relation to the contravene family violence order offence on 17 September 2025 (CC2025/10235) Ms Newman stated, “she was invited to the property and does not believe she had done anything wrong”. She indicated to the ICOAR author she had only entered pleas of guilty out of convenience as to not prolong her court proceedings.

129. The authorities make clear that a person may plead guilty for all number of reasons which extend beyond that person’s belief in their guilt, including for convenience: see Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; 184 CLR 132 at 157 per Dawson J. At the sentencing conversation Ms Newman expressed her frustration about what she perceived to be an absence of support for her to assert her role as her youngest son’s mother, with his father automatically assumed to be the preferred parent. She expressed significant anger connected to a sense of powerlessness that she carries because of her inability to successfully advocate for her youngest son to be returned to her care. There are no Family Court parenting orders in place.

130. It is difficult to disentangle the connection between Ms Newman’s pursuit of restoring her role in her son’s life (something she is entitled to do and about which she feels significantly wronged) and the offending against the father of her son with whom she shares a complicated relationship. Ms Newman’s clear frustration and sense of powerlessness in the face of her ex-partner’s determination to remain the primary carer for their son, whilst not mitigatory, was central to the commission of the additional offences.

131. At the circle sentencing conversation, Ms Newman expressed a desire for “a normal life back with [her] son”. As was highlighted by Ms Baker-Goldsmith, Ms Newman has had difficulty accessing her preferred treatments in custody as she cannot be prescribed “high-risk” medication at the AMC. Ms Newman informed the court at the sentencing hearing that she has for now abandoned any hope of access to her son until she is in a position to pursue a legally appropriate pathway.

Pleas of guilty

141. Ms Newman entered guilty pleas to series 1 in this court following the resolution of the matter at criminal case conference. A reduction in the sentence imposed on those offences by 20 per cent is appropriate: see Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42; 21 ACTLR 59.

142. Ms Newman entered guilty pleas to series 2, 3 and 4 at an early stage in the Magistrates Court prior to committal to this court. Ms Newman’s pleas of guilty had significant utilitarian value and spared the need for the victim to participate in a trial and spared the court and the community the cost of a trial. I accept her plea as an indication of her willingness to accept responsibility. A 25 per cent reduction in the sentence to be imposed is appropriate: see DPP v Creighton [2025] ACTSC 511 at [39]-[41].

Criminal history

143. Ms Newman has a significant criminal history commencing as a juvenile. She has previous convictions for violent offending. The offender’s criminal history limits the leniency that can be afforded to her.

Time in custody

144. Ms Newman has now spent 261 days in custody. All of that time has been allocated to sentences imposed upon her in the ACT Magistrates Court which do not expire until 8 December 2025.

Parity

145. Parity is a consideration in this matter there being a co-offender in respect of series 1. In the co-offender’s matter, the following sentence was imposed in the ACT Magistrates Court: (a) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/2224) the offender was convicted and sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment suspended on entering a good behaviour order for a period of 6 months.

146. I observe here the distinction between the two offender’s involvement in the offending. The co-offender was sentenced for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the basis of a single punch which rendered Mr N unconscious. The offender punched the same victim in the face many times, breaking his nose, prior to the co-offender administering the punch which knocked him unconscious. The prosecution accurately submitted that the offender in this case was the instigator of the violence. I also bear in mind that the co-offender was not on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, had no offences of violence on his criminal history, had positive references, and a positive pre-sentence report. Current sentencing practice

147. The prosecutor provided a table of comparable sentencing outcomes in respect of series 1 and provided me with a range of cases to consider with respect to the remaining series. The comparable case table for series 1 is annexed to this judgment. The matters highlighted by the prosecutor in his written submissions are as follows: R v Slattery (No 3); DPP v Slattery [2025] ACTSC 125; DPP v Hudson [2024] ACTSC 159; DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 (an appeal by the offender was dismissed, Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30); and R v EN [2020] ACTSC 302. I have carefully considered those matters and observe that consideration of sentencing practice assists to achieve the consistent application of legal principle not mathematical equivalence in sentencing outcomes.

Determination

148. In sentencing the offender, I have regard to the purposes of sentencing as set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The reduction of the offender’s moral culpability moderates the weight of punishment, denunciation and general deterrence to a substantial degree. Countervailing considerations such as protection of the community and specific deterrence remain relevant. The sentence must recognise the harm done to the victims as well as give effect to the prospect of rehabilitation that this offender holds some promise of realising.

149. For the offences categorised as family violence I have also had regard to the relevant matters contained in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

150. Sentencing the offender for multiple offences which requires the application of the totality principle. I have had regard to the principles in relation to accumulation and concurrency as set out by the Court of Appeal in Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [37] and I bear in mind the need to avoid the perception that multiple offences result in a discount. The offender is currently subject to an ‘existing sentence’ to which I have already referred. I must ensure that the total period of imprisonment is just and appropriate and not ‘crushing’. To avoid such an outcome, I consider that some concurrency between the offences and with the existing sentence is warranted.

151. When the matter was before me last, I determined to deal with the Commonwealth offences by imposing a fine on the offender and not permitting her any time to pay the fine. The prosecution supported this outcome in circumstances where it was conceded that the offending in each case did not warrant the imposition of a term of imprisonment: s 116ZP of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act.

152. Sensibly, there was no contest that the series 1 offences warranted the imposition of periods of imprisonment.

153. The prosecution accurately submitted that the seriousness of the conduct in breach of the family violence order is to be found in the deliberate and wilful nature of the acts. I do not consider that the first in time breach, CC2025/9038, is an offence where the only appropriate outcome is a period of imprisonment. I cannot say the same about the following offences CC2025/4629 and CC2025/10345.

154. Whilst the offender has spent no time in custody solely referrable to these offences, she has now spent a considerable period in full time imprisonment. This is relevant to an assessment of specific deterrence.

155. Rehabilitation is not lost to this offender. I accept that the offender is genuinely motivated to establish and rebuild relationships with her children. I readily accept that the unilateral decision of the father of the offender’s youngest child to withhold him from her care sent her into a spiral of mental ill-health from which she was unable to pull herself and which underpinned much of her offending conduct. I also accept that the birth of her youngest child was an opportunity for her to demonstrate herself capable of a different kind of relationship with her children and when that opportunity was lost, she became deeply despondent and angry. This is not to excuse her conduct, but together with her childhood experience, it does explain her resort to violence and abuse when she feels powerless about her personal circumstances.

Orders

162. For those reasons I confirm the following orders for the Commonwealth offences imposed on 10 November 2025: (1) On the charge of use carriage service to threaten serious harm (CC2025/7430), the offender is convicted and fined $600 and allowed no time to pay. (2) On the charge of use carriage service to threaten serious harm (CC2025/7434), the offender is convicted and fined $600 and allowed no time to pay. (3) On the charge of use carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (CC2025/7435), the offender is convicted and fined $600 and allowed no time to pay. (4) On the charge of use carriage service to threaten to kill (CC2025/7437), the offender is convicted and fined $900 and allowed no time to pay.

163. For those reasons, I make the following orders: (5) The offender is also convicted on SCCAN2024/188, CC2024/2407 CC2025/9038, CC2025/4629 and CC2025/10345. (6) Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the 6-month period of imprisonment imposed and suspended on CC2021/173 is imposed (the good behaviour order having expired). The period of imprisonment is to commence on 8 October 2025 and end on 7 April 2026. (7) I take no further action on the breach of good behaviour orders imposed on CC2023/4821, CC2023/1676 and CC2023/1675. (8) On the charge of the count of wounding (SCCAN2024/188) the offender is sentenced to 9 months and 18 days of imprisonment to start on 8 March 2026 and end on 25 December 2026. (9) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/2407) the offender is sentenced to 9 months and 18 days of imprisonment to start on 8 October 2026 and end on 25 July 2027. (10) On the charge of contravene family violence order (CC2025/9038) the offender is fined $1000 and allowed no time to pay. (11) On the charge of contravene family violence order (CC2025/10345) the offender is sentenced to 2 months and 7 days of imprisonment to start on 8 July 2027 and end on 14 September 2027. (12) On the charge of contravene family violence order (CC2025/4629) the offender is sentenced to 2 months 7 days of imprisonment to start on 8 September 2027 and end on 14 November 2027. (13) The total period of imprisonment is 2 years, 1 month and 7 days to start on 8 October 2025 and end on 14 November 2027. (14) The sentence is to be suspended on 8 April 2026 upon the offender entering an undertaking to be of good behaviour until 14 November 2027 together with the following conditions: i) Accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and comply with all reasonable directions including with respect to urinalysis as well as educational, vocational, psychological, psychiatric assessment, programs, treatment or support; ii) Not to consume illicit substances; iii) Reside as directed by ACT Corrective Services; iv) Engage with the Toora Women’s Inc Program as directed; v) Engage with programs, treatment and support provided by Winnunga Nimityjah Aboriginal Health Service as directed.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-three [163] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: P Beohm Date: 5.12.2025 Annexure A: table of comparable cases – series 1

Wounding

Case Summary Sentence

R v Gordon (No 2) The offender pleaded guilty in 1 year, 6 months, reduced from 2 [2019] ACTSC 254 the Magistrates Court to charges years on account of the plea. including an intentional wound. In the course of a robbery, he stabbed the victim four to five times with a kitchen knife, causing puncture wounds to his arm and chest. He had to undergo surgery. The wounding was assessed as mid-range. He was 23 years old and had problems with methamphetamine use. He had a significant criminal record including violence. He was on conditional liberty at the time, including suspended sentence orders.

R v Campbell (No 4) Mr Campbell was found guilty at AOABH – 8 months imprisonment [2019] ACTSC 240 trial of five counts, including a Wound – 3 years imprisonment. wound and an AOABH. He dragged a woman along the ground, causing injuries. The AOABH was assessed as being in the mid-range. A man tried to come to her rescue. Mr Campbell stabbed that man in the abdomen, causing a deep wound that required emergency surgery but resulted in a full recovery. It was assessed as above the mid-range. He was 34 years old and on conditional liberty in the form of bail at the time. He had a long-standing issue with drug use and was under the influence of methamphetamine and heroin at the time. He had a significant criminal history which denied him leniency.

R v Bloxsome [2019] The offender was found guilty at 20 months imprisonment, which ACTSC 217 trial of several counts including was undisturbed on appeal. intentional wounding. During a disagreement over a machete, the victim was shot in the thigh by the co-offender. The offender then stabbed the victim in the forearm and hand with a knife. It was held to be in the mid-range of objective seriousness. He had a significant criminal record, an ongoing history of substance abuse, untreated mental health issues and a dysfunctional upbringing.

R v Vu [2018] ACTSC The offender pleaded guilty to 12 months imprisonment, reduced 359 intentionally wounding a man. from 15 months on account of the During a dispute, the victim plea of guilty, served as an ICO. punched the offender in the head and put him in a headlock. The two men were pulled apart - the offender went to his van, obtained a fishing knife, returned and stabbed the complainant, who had also armed himself, once in the chest. It was assessed as being in the low-range of objective seriousness. The offender had no criminal history and was otherwise of good character. Numerous other wounding cases are discussed at [43]-[48]. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Case Summary Sentence

DPP v Black (No 2) The offender, while intoxicated 1 year, 5 months and 21 days [2025] ACTSC 219 and causing a ruckus with co- imprisonment reduced from 2 offenders, attacked an years. intellectually disabled man. The It formed part of a TES that was offender struck him, he fell to the suspended after 187 days ground, and then the offender imprisonment until November and the co-offenders struck and 2028. kicked him several times. He suffered commuted nasal bone fractures requiring general anaesthetic, bruising, a concussion and tenderness. It was a random, unprovoked, brutal and cowardly attack. It was found to be a serious example of its kind. He was on bail at the time. The judgment references other comparable cases at [124]. The offender was 28 years old and had a disadvantaged upbringing, commencing methamphetamine use at a young age. He had a mild intellectual disability.

DPP v Chatfield [2024] Mr Chatfield pleaded guilty in the 1 year, 6 months imprisonment ACTSC 329 Magistrates Court to eight reduced from 2 years offences, including an imprisonment. aggravated AOABH. The assault consisted of him invading his intimate partner's home. He punched her in the face, causing swelling, bleeding and a loose front tooth. He was 30 years old, and suffered a childhood marked by "instability, abuse, neglect, exposure to violence, use of illicit substances and economic disadvantage." He had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a severe issue with illicit substances. He had an "extensive" criminal history. DPP v Stasinos [2023] Mr Statsinos [sic] pleaded guilty 1 year imprisonment reduced from ACTSC 179 to several offences including an 1 year and 4 months AOABH. During an aggravated burglary, he punched a man in the face. The victim fell over, bleeding from the nose and mouth, and sustained swelling and redness. The offender had a relevant criminal history. He had struggled with drug addiction from a young age.

R v Campbell (No 4) See above. See above. [2019] ACTSC 240

R v Howell [2018] Mr Howell was found guilty at trial Inflict ABH – 6 months ACTSC 155 of intentionally or recklessly imprisonment on entry into a 30-inflict ABH. He was drunk and month good behaviour order. punched a man in the head repeatedly, including when he was pinned to the ground. The victim was knocked unconscious and sustained bruising, swelling and a comminuted fracture of his cheekbone that damaged his nerve. The offence was found to be in the mid- to high-range. Other comparable cases (featuring AOABH rather than inflict) are summarised at [23]. The offender was of good character but entirely remorseless.

R v Forsyth [2015] Mr Forsyth, an Olympic boxer, 4 months imprisonment reduced ACTSC 326 was found guilty at trial of one from 6 on account of the delay, count of AOABH. suspended on entry into a 12 month good behaviour order with During a road rage incident, he a $1000 security. punched a man at least eight times, causing red marks, bruising and a chipped tooth. The offender was 34 years old and had a history of traffic offences (and, since this offence, some other violent offences in other jurisdictions). His upbringing was positive. The matter was quite delayed; the offender displayed progress in his rehabilitation in that time.

R v AJ (unreported, AJ pleaded guilty to attacking a 2 years imprisonment, reduced to ACTSC, 5 February corrections officer in the AMC, 20 months on account of the plea 2013, SCC 91 of 2012) headbutting him in the nose, of guilty. lacerating and fracturing it. The injury required surgery under general anaesthetic. The offender had a long history of alcohol abuse and a disadvantaged upbringing. He also had a long criminal record featuring violent offences. R v Tilley (unreported, The offender pleaded guilty to AOABH 1 (the savage beating) - 2 ACTSC, 8 November three AOABH charges and ran years imprisonment. 2011, SCC 17 of 2011) an unsuccessful disputed facts AOABH 2 and 3 received 1 year, 7 hearing. He was part of a group months imprisonment each. of armed men who hunted down and attacked the victims. One sustained a "particularly savage beating" requiring intensive care. Another sustained bruising and a broken nose and a week off work. The third sustained bruising and cuts to his back.

Annexure B: facts for the breach matter

CC2021/173 – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 1. About 5.00pm on Monday 27 April 2020, Ms Newman, born [redacted], herein referred to as the Defendant, entered LK’s cell at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), located at 10400 Monaro Highway Hume in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Upon entering the cell, the Defendant assaulted LK by punching her in the face, back of the head [redacted]. LK attempted to defend herself by throwing a kettle of hot water at the Defendant, which caused the Defendant to retreat. Parts of the incident were captured on closed circuit television (CCTV). 2. CCTV of the incident shows the Defendant approach LK’s cell with UE and EQ. UE opens the cell door and the Defendant pushes past her and goes into the cell. UE enters the cell and moments later EQ enters the cell. The Defendant was in the cell for approximately 15 seconds, UE was in the cell for approximately 11 seconds and EQ entered the cell for approximately three seconds. 3. About 8.30am on Tuesday 28 April 2020, Police attended the AMC and spoke with all parties involved. LK participated in a digital record of conversation (DROC) where she gave her version of events. She told Police that she was in her cell and the Defendant entered the cell and, ''grabbed me from the back of the head and started punching me behind. I turned around and she started punching me again in the face. She [redacted] punched me straight in the nose”. LK became extremely upset when recounting the incident and told Police she was scared and was acting in self-defence when she, “grabbed the jug and started throwing water on her to try and get her off me”. 4. Police observed LK to have several scratches to her face and lumps on her forehead and back of her head. LK’s nose appeared quite swollen and bruised. 5. Police spoke with LK’s cell mate, OO, who participated in a DROC where she gave a similar version of events. OO told Police that, prior to the assault, the Defendant had called OO into her cell to have a conversation with her. During this conversation, the Defendant had asked OO if she would "step in" if the Defendant tried to fight LK. OO told Police that, later that day, she heard screaming coming from her cell and ran towards it. She saw the Defendant. leaving her cell and, when she arrived at the cell she observed LK and saw that she "was pretty beaten up”. [Redacted]. 6. Police spoke with a witness, EQ, who participated in a DROC and gave a similar version of events. EQ stated that the Defendant had asked her to come to LK’s cell because she wanted to have a conversation with LK. The Defendant wanted EQ there in case the Defendant got into a fight. EQ told Police that the Defendant went into the cell because she, "had her own beef with LK." EQ didn't see what happened in the cell but she didn't hear the Defendant try to talk to LK. EQ heard a scuffle in the cell and she UE enter the cell and heard UE say, "that's enough, that's enough." EQ stated that she saw UE trying to pull the Defendant back and get the Defendant off LK and then saw LK pick up a kettle of hot water and throw it over the Defendant, UE and herself. 7. Police offered UE an opportunity to participate in a DROC, however, she declined. 8. Police were introduced to the Defendant by Corrections Officers at the AMC and Police later confirmed her identity using Police indices. Police offered the Defendant an opportunity to participate in a digital record of interview (DROI), however, she declined. After initial Police attendance, the Defendant changed her mind and wanted to participate in a DROI, however, when Police attempted to organise a time for the DROI, the Defendant declined a second time. 9. On Wednesday 29 April 2020, the Defendant made a phone call from the AMC to a relative. At the beginning of the phone call, the Defendant was informed by an automated message that the phone call may be monitored and recorded. During the phone call, the Defendant spoke about the assault and stated she, "went in to one of the rooms and went to go have a fight and like, the slut, she started umm trying to stab me with the pen." She further stated, "I just rocked her but she fucking got me good”. 10. At no time did LK give the Defendant permission to assault her. 11. An infringement notice or offence notice has not been issued in relation to this offence.